The populist ethno-nationalists in the Trump White House do not believe in this order. Their
critique — which is simultaneously moral, religious, economic, political and racial — is nicely summarized
in the remarks Steve Bannon made to a Vatican conference in 2014.
Once there was a collection of Judeo-Christian nation-states, Bannon argued, that practiced a humane
form of biblical capitalism and fostered culturally coherent communities. But in the past few decades,
the party of Davos — with its globalism, relativism, pluralism and diversity — has sapped away the moral
foundations of this Judeo-Christian way of life.
Humane capitalism has been replaced by the savage capitalism that brought us the financial crisis.
National democracy has been replaced by a crony-capitalist network of global elites. Traditional virtue
has been replaced by abortion and gay marriage. Sovereign nation-states are being replaced by hapless
multilateral organizations like the E.U.
Decadent and enervated, the West lies vulnerable in the face of a confident and convicted Islamofascism,
which is the cosmic threat of our time.
In this view, Putin is a valuable ally precisely because he also seeks to replace the multiracial,
multilingual global order with strong nation-states. Putin ardently defends traditional values. He knows
how to take the fight to radical Islam.
It’s actually interesting to read Donald Trump’s ideologist, Bannon, next to Putin’s ideologist Alexander
Dugin. It’s like going back to the 20th century and reading two versions of Marxism.
One is American Christian and the other orthodox Russian, but both have grandiose, sweeping theories
of world history, both believe we’re in an apocalyptic clash of civilizations, both seamlessly combine
economic, moral and political analysis. Both self-consciously see themselves as part of a loosely affiliated
international populist movement, including the National Front in France, Nigel Farage in Britain and
many others.
Dugin wrote positively about Trump last winter, and Bannon referred to Dugin in his Vatican remarks.
“We must create strategic alliances to overthrow the present order of things,” Dugin has written,
“of which the core could be described as human rights, anti-hierarchy and political correctness — everything
that is the face of the Beast, the Antichrist.”
“We, the Judeo-Christian West, really have to look at what [Putin] is talking about as far as
traditionalism goes,” Bannon said, “particularly the sense of where it supports the underpinnings of
nationalism.”
Last week’s intelligence report on Russian hacking brought the Republican regulars, like John McCain
and Lindsey Graham, into direct conflict with the ethno-nationalist populists. Trump planted himself
firmly in the latter camp, and dragged Fox News and a surprising number of congressional Republicans
with him.
If Trump were as effective as Putin, we’d probably see a radical shift in American grand strategy,
a shift away from the postwar global consensus and toward an alliance with various right-wing populist
movements simmering around the globe.
But Trump is no Putin. Putin is theological and cynical, disciplined and calculating, experienced
and knowledgeable. When Bannon, Michael Flynn and others try to make Trump into a revolutionary foreign
policy president, they will be taking on the entire foreign policy establishment under a leader who
may sympathize with them, but is inattentive, unpredictable and basically uninterested in anything but
his own status at the moment.
I’m personally betting the foreign policy apparatus, including the secretaries of state and defense,
will grind down the populists around Trump. Frictions will explode within the insanely confusing lines
of authority in the White House. Trump will find he likes hanging around the global establishment the
way he liked having the Clintons at his wedding. In office he won’t be able to fixate on ISIS but will
face a blizzard of problems, and thus be dependent on the established institutions.
Pop quiz—which major American political figure said the following:
“The 2008 crisis… is really driven I believe by the greed, much of it driven by the greed of the
investment banks.”
“I think the bailouts in 2008 were wrong.”
“[N]ot one criminal charge has ever been brought to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis.”
“The Republican Party “is really a collection of crony capitalists that feel that they have a
different set of rules” and are “the reason that the United States’ financial situation is so dire.”
Nope, this isn’t a reheated Bernie Sanders screed. These are the words of Steve Bannon—you know, Donald
Trump’s shadowy éminence grise, the guy the president-elect Donald Trump just tapped as his chief
strategist, possibly reprising the role of Machiavellian whiz that helped win Trump the election. Bannon,
who had run alt-right site Breitbart before becoming the Trump campaign CEO, delivered these remarks at a
conference inside the Vatican in the summer of 2014, recently
unearthed by BuzzFeed.
This is the gist of Bannon’s takedown of Wall Street: American capitalism, in its current form, is
immoral. Investment bank greed caused the 2008 global financial crisis. The “outrageous” bank bailouts
shunted the economic burden on middle-class taxpayers, hurting the economy and leaving many—particularly
millennials—out of jobs. Shareholders, bank execs, and crony capitalists, meanwhile, made out like bandits.
Nothing’s changed to fix it. Banks are still bent on turning hedge fund-style profits, ignoring their proper
role in the economy: lending and investing in entrepreneurs. And the guilty parties “have never really been
held accountable.” (Bannon worked
at Goldman Sachs in the late 1980s, before its shift into trading practices that he was condemning.)
Markets
seem to think the new Trump administration will coddle big banks; JPMorgan Chase shares are up almost
17% since Election Day (Nov. 8); those of Goldman Sachs have soared nearly 15%.
This isn’t so surprising; throughout the election, Trump consistently spared Wall Street from his
scathing populist rants (though he has blamed Wall Street for causing “tremendous problems for us” and
criticized the lax regulation of hedge funds). Trump vows to cut bank regulation, including the 2010
Dodd-Frank Act, and has said he
favored
the 2008 bank bailouts. His transition team is jam-packed with
Wall Street “insiders”
(pdf), according to Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren. Pretty much what you might expect from any old
Republican on his way to the White House.
Could Bannon’s stances signal that the new administration might not be as cuddly with big banks as
Trump’s past remarks might suggest?
The chance that Trump might rein in Wall Street might cheer progressives—until they read the rest of
Bannon’s Vatican lecture.
As he describes it, the financial shenanigans that led to the 2008 meltdown reflect a much larger “crisis
both of capitalism but really of the underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian West in our beliefs.” What saved
the world from atheism, fascism, and “a barbaric empire in the Far East” in the first half of the 20th
century, creating Pax Americana and a rising middle class, was an “enlightened from of capitalism” rooted in
the spiritual and moral foundations of Judeo-Christian beliefs.
Government cronyism and Western secularism have since eroded this “enlightened capitalism,” distributing
wealth unfairly—fomenting populist uprisings across the globe. Once again, another global war against
fascism—this time Islamic fascism—is brewing. The implications of Bannon’s worldview seem to be that to
prevail over fascism this time, capitalism must be restored to its “Judeo-Christian West” moral core,
breaking free from secularism and federal government control.
Garrett Lin, Florida January 10, 2017
Taking Bannon at his word in interviews, his goal for the GOP is not to build a party of 'ethno-nationalism,'
but one of 'economic nationalism,' (read: globally competitive nationalism) rooted in robust economic
growth for all Americans--a true populism inclusive of Americans of all 'identities,' all of whom,
in fact, have a vested interest that the US maintain geopolitical strength enough to match the manufacturing
base of China.
Bannon's "Judeo-Christian West," can be read separately from his 'American Nationalism,' but they
are not entirely exclusive. Bannon knows the US Constitution was a development of Enlightenment-era
ideals of Protestant Western nations, and thus, all Americans who live under this document do, indeed,
share in the heritage of the US as a nation of Western society. That is the connection. Ethnicity
has nothing to do with it.
If Bannon intended to build some sort of (implicitly white) 'ethno-nationalism,' would his campaign
have scheduled the 'Hindu-Americans for Trump' event, which took place last October, as an example?
I think not.
Bannon knows who his audience is. He knows how that provocative headlines raise the hair of moralist
puritans. Of course he knows to emphasize the 'Judeo-Christian' West when addressing the Vatican.
And indeed he also knows that running the United States of America is different than delivering a
keynote to a few priests.
Nothing at all to do with petty value judgments, the relative morality of capitalism, etc.
Steve Bannon, Former Senior Trump Advisor, Arrested For Defrauding Trump VotersMark Thomason , Aug 20 2020 16:12 utc |
1
It is likely that U.S. President Donald Trump will soon says that he hardly knew his
former campaign manager and senior advisor Steve Bannon and that he had always suspected that
Bannon was a crook.
Today the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York
announced an indictment against Bannon and others:
Starting in approximately December 2018, BRIAN KOLFAGE, STEPHEN BANNON, ANDREW BADOLATO,
and TIMOTHY SHEA, and others, orchestrated a scheme to defraud hundreds of thousands of
donors, including donors in the Southern District of New York, in connection with an online
crowdfunding campaign ultimately known as "We Build The Wall" that raised more than $25
million to build a wall along the southern border of the United States. In particular, to
induce donors to donate to the campaign, KOLFAGE repeatedly and falsely assured the public
that he would "not take a penny in salary or compensation" and that "100% of the funds
raised ... will be used in the execution of our mission and purpose" because, as BANNON
publicly stated, "we're a volunteer organization."
Those representations were false.
The four indicted persons who ran the "We Build The Wall" campaign funneled donations into
their own pockets:
[STEVE] BANNON, through a non-profit organization under his control ("Non-Profit-1"),
received over $1 million from We Build the Wall, at least some of which BANNON used to
cover hundreds of thousands of dollars in BANNON's personal expenses.
Bannon and the other three accused persons are now under arrest.
Interestingly the indictments come from the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern
District of New York which in June was involved in a
spat with Trump :
Geoffrey Berman, the powerful U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, said
late Friday that he had not resigned after Attorney General William Barr said he would be
stepping down. Barr sent a letter to Berman on Saturday saying he had asked President Trump
to fire Berman, and the president had done so.
"I was surprised and quite disappointed by the press statement you released last night,"
Barr said in a statement. "Because you have declared that you have no intention of
resigning, I have asked the President to remove you as of today, and he has done so."
Berman's office had investigated some of President Trump's associates, including the
president's former personal attorney Michael Cohen.
There were at that time
several known cases in the Southern District that involved people somewhat associated
with Trump. But it still is not known why exactly Trump intervened in that office.
Could it have been because of the case against Bannon which was not publicly known at that
time?
Probably not. Bannon and the others defrauded people who want to build the wall and are
thereby on Trump's side. Trump is not probably not stupid enough to intervene in such a
case.
Then again ...
The advisory board of We
Build The Wall includes several other pro-Trump figures including mercenary salesman Erik
Prince.
CBS reports that Bannon was
taken into custody by US Postal Inspection Service agents. In the announcement of the
indictment Audrey Strauss, the Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New
York, explicitly praises the USPIS for its support. In light of the recent dust up over
alleged Trump moves against the Postal Service that deserves a chuckle.
Bannon had recently worked with the Chinese crook Guo Wengui to build up a media company.
As we noted a year
ago :
A non-profit that "did not pay him" actually paid for services that
benefited him. There was just a nominal cut out between him and the payment by his
non-profit.
Bannon said this was wrong when the Clinton's did it. That is how the money got from their
non-profit Foundation to them, and in much larger amounts than what Bannon took.
Bannon said it was wrong then when the Clinton's did it. Democrats say it is wrong now
when Bannon did it. They are both correct.
Economic self-sufficiency which is also a foundation of REAL national security starts
from industry. No industry--no American nation. Simple as that.
The very idea of an American nation has all but been destroyed. The very people who
built the US have been vilified and many within this group have gone along with it. The
problem is beyond material. America is suffering from a psycho-social ailment. It is at
least 2 or 3 different cultures within the borders of one country. Even if industries were
brought back what purpose would they serve? Hedonism, self-worship, and consumerism are the
new trinity of many within the elite and a great many in the so called middle class. I
doubt economic self-sufficiency is possible let alone long-suffering given the absence of
purpose and meaning in people's lives. The secular reigns supreme over the sacred.
cdvision • 19
hours ago It is practically impossible for the US to recover as a manufacturing nation.
The skills are gone, the education and training has gone, the culture will not accept it,
and anyway it would be massively more expensive than buying superior goods at a cheaper
price - think cars, for example. The US is massively behind the curve; I read recently that
China has more robots producing stuff than the rest of the world combined. And what robots
are working in the US have likely been put in by Daimler or BMW - and be Chinese made
robots.
The US may try and break its dependency on China - say to Vietnam or India - but have
any of those idiots suggesting this been to Vietnam or India. You see an awful lot of
Chinese companies there manufacturing stuff. So changing the Made in China label to Made in
Vietnam label changes nothing.
According to latest stats only 16% of Chinese exports go to the US. If this went to zero
it would be a short term problem for China, but a massive blow for the US. Its not just the
cheap shit that ends up in Walmart, there are few end products that don't have parts made
in China, and realistically changing that is impossible. I keep repeating that all China
has to do is stop exporting to the US and in a week of so the US would be on its knees. Oh,
and its a myth that China is ripping off US IP - maybe in the past, but now the future is
out east. Think 5G; its a given that the countries with the best infrastructure will
prosper.
Vasya Pypkin •
20
hours ago With this elite nothing good is going to happen. So, there must be elites
thinking along Andrei lines, but here comes the question of power. To push measures
necessary to industrialize those new elite must have power and not in a sense like Trump
has or rather not...
Smells like revolutionary coup is needed to safe USA. see more
Steve Bannon is an American Exceptionalist. He argues that USA-style capitalism and Chinese
communism are incompatible systems which cannot "compete" for influence because, to his
thinking, the Chinese model will always "win" (i.e. seem a better system, particularly in
Global south). He advocates first, strict de-coupling; and second, a WW2 level total war with
goal of destroying CCP.
I know people who have taken to Bannon's populist message, but seem to miss the "total
war" part. This is the danger of a USA lurch towards fascism, should such occur as the
coronavirus lockdown proceeds, as a messianic crusade against the Chinese would be a
centrepiece.
This Indian neocon forgets that it was the USA which brought destruction on Syria by unleashing the civil war in order to achieve goals of its Middle East policy.
Fueling money, weapons (from already destructed Libya), and jihadists (financed by Saudi and Golf monarchies.) There are apple
documents about this activities and the amount of foreign mercenaries in ISIS forces. It was
Obama and Hillary who created ISIS.
The fact that Haaretz republished such a weak article, originally published on Jan 24, 2019 on Oct 19, 2019 suggests that
Tulsi has few friends in Israel lobby, which is deepely interested in the USA interventionalist policies in the Middle East.
Notable quotes:
"... Though not of Indian origin, Gabbard has been warmly embraced by pro-Modi elements of the Hindu-American diaspora in the U.S., many of whom came forward and donated generously to her campaign. According to The Intercept , "Nearly one-third of Gabbard's overall donations - $1.24 million - came from more than 800 individual donors with names of Hindu origin, many of whom made repeat donations." ..."
"... Steve Bannon "loves Tulsi Gabbard." He thinks she "gets the foreign policy stuff, the Islamic terrorism stuff ." Tucker Carlson loves her Assad-as-genocidaire skepticism, David Duke loves how she's realigning U.S. politics, and Richard Spencer lauds her "bravery" in the diplomatic field. ..."
"... Bannon was so impressed with Gabbard as a potential ally that as he brokered a meeting between her and the newly-installed President Donald Trump . Tulsi jumped at the opportunity: in her own words , "I walked out thinking that there may be some opportunity to work with this administration to shift our foreign policy in a more positive, less destructive direction." ..."
This article was originally published on 24th January 2019
"For too long, the U.S. has turned a blind eye to the atrocities being committed against civilians in Yemen by the Saudi-U.S.
coalition [a] genocidal war that has killed tens of thousands of Yemeni civilians with bombs and mass starvation, creating the worst
humanitarian crisis in the world The time for crocodile tears and baseless platitudes is over. Enough is enough. The U.S must end
its support for Saudi Arabia and stop waging interventionist wars [unauthorized by Congress] that increase destruction, death and
suffering around the world "
You wouldn't be surprised if this was a speech given by
Vladimir Putin or
Bashar Assad . But this isn't a quote
from the Kremlin or Damascus. It part of a speech by a member of the U.S. Congress who's joined the running to be selected as the
Democratic Party's presidential nominee:
Tulsi Gabbard
.
U.S. politicians criticizing imperialist U.S. foreign policy interventions, this time in the Middle East, and helpfully excluding
other major world powers' own interventions, is exactly the message Russia seeks to amplify through its propaganda channels. On cue,
Russia's 24 hour English news channel, RT, serially
posted Gabbard's video clip on their YouTube
channel with the headline that read: "Speeches that still matter: Rep Gabbard on bringing an end to U.S. interventionism."
Was Gabbard's speech a genuinely passionate plea on humanitarian grounds, to the powers that be, to end the humanitarian crisis
in Yemen? Or was it carefully constructed political opportunism? One clear way to triangulate the authenticity of her call would
be to test how consistently Gabbard has called out state-led humanitarian crises and deaths around the world.
The death and destruction in Yemen, Syria, Iraq and elsewhere is heartbreaking. It's difficult for any conscientious human being
to be insensitive to grotesque acts of war where civilians are bombed or gassed to death. But what is perplexing is Tulsi's selective
geographic umbrage on this issue.
Hey @realdonaldtrump : being Saudi Arabia's
bitch is not "America First."
On the one hand, she condemns the Saudi-U.S. led coalition as complicit in a genocidal war, but she welcomes India's Prime Minister
Narendra Modi, who has been called the "
man with a massacre on his hands " with open arms.
Some background: In 2002, Modi was chief minister of the Indian state of Gujarat when fire broke out in a train full of Hindu
pilgrims. This is how The Guardian's Aditya Chakrabortty describes what followed:
"Within hours and without a shred of evidence, Modi declared that the Pakistani secret services had been to blame; he then had
the charred bodies paraded in the main city of Ahmedabad; and let his own party support a state-wide strike for three days.
"What followed was mass bloodshed: 1,000 dead on official estimates, more than 2,000 by independent tallies. The vast majority
of those who died were Muslim. Mobs of men dragged women and young girls out of their homes and raped them. One [of the ringleaders]
boasted of how he slit open the womb of a pregnant woman."
There were clear signs that the attackers benefitted from state-level support. The attackers, armed with swords, machetes or iron
bars, carried computer print-outs listing the addresses of Muslim families, shops and businesses,
according to a report in The Telegraph.
Across Gujarat, 180 mosques were destroyed or damaged along with thousands of Muslim-owned businesses and homes. Callers to police
stations were told: "We don't have orders to save you," and "We cannot help you, we have orders from above." Survivors called for
this to be recognized not by the over-used term of 'intercommunal riots' but rather a pogrom, or attempted genocide.
The U.S. government's belief in Modi's complicity was clear when it rejected his request for a U.S. visa in 2005, by which time
he had become leader of India's nationalist Bharatiya Janata party (BJP). He was
excluded under
a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that "makes any government official who was responsible for or directly carried
out at any time particularly severe violations of religious freedom ineligible for a visa."
President Obama overturned the visa ban in 2016. India's courts have exonerated Modi. He has, on numerous occasions, says he has
"moved on." But the ghosts of Gujarat haven't moved anywhere.
Tulsi Gabbard has an exceptional appreciation for Modi.
Hers is a very personal rapport. She presented him with her own copy of the Bhagavad-Gita, on which she took her Congressional
oath of office, when he visited the U.S. Modi sent her with "a beautiful message of Krishna" for her wedding. Gabbard then presented
him with a CD of music from her wedding.
Upon Mr Modi's invitation, she took a trip to India
where she was widely regarded as the "darling of the BJP and the RSS" – the RSS (a right-wing, Hindu nationalist, paramilitary volunteer
organization) being the BJP's ideological "parent." Both groups, which wield enormous power in India, take pride in a narrow, chauvinistic
view of India as a Hindu country where Muslims and other minorities should be considered second-class citizens.
Such was her affinity that Tulsi
opposed House
Resolution 417 - "Praising India's rich religious diversity and commitment to tolerance and equality, and reaffirming the need to
protect the rights and freedoms of religious minorities" - that was seen as a veiled criticism of Modi. She even tried to
brush away the Gujarat
pogrom by saying, "There was a lot of misinformation that surrounded the event in 2002."
When it comes to Modi, Gabbard seems to have no pangs of conscience about "destruction, death and suffering" and comfortably wipes
the blood off the hands of those complicit in murder.
Why would Tulsi Gabbard damn what she sees as America's complicity in Yemen but embrace an authoritarian foreign leader with blood
on his hands? Why does she openly support and endorse Modi's poor track record on human rights? What distinction does Gabbard draw
between the thousands of Muslims massacred in Gujarat and the thousands of Muslims who died in Yemen? Why isn't she making a similarly
passionate plea to Prime Minister Modi to stop the ongoing mob lynchings and rapes in India?
One obvious reason she won't do that is the financial and electoral benefits she accrues from openly supporting Modi. By displaying
her carefully cultivated public support for Modi, she has won the support of many Indian Americans - particularly those with links
to the RSS - by flaunting her 'loyal' Hindu identity.
Though not of Indian origin, Gabbard has been warmly embraced by pro-Modi elements of the Hindu-American diaspora in the U.S.,
many of whom came forward and donated generously to her campaign.
According to The Intercept
, "Nearly one-third of Gabbard's overall donations - $1.24 million - came from more than 800 individual donors with names of
Hindu origin, many of whom made repeat donations."
It's not just the Hindu right who love Gabbard. America's resurgent hard and far right agrees, not least because she was an outspoken
critic of the Obama administration's alleged reluctance to recognize that "Islamic extremists are our enemy."
Steve Bannon "loves Tulsi Gabbard." He thinks she "gets the foreign policy stuff,
the Islamic terrorism
stuff ." Tucker Carlson
loves her Assad-as-genocidaire skepticism, David Duke loves how she's realigning U.S. politics, and Richard Spencer lauds her
"bravery" in the diplomatic field.
Her own aunt, Caroline Sinavaiana Gabbard, has noted her discomfort with this mixed bag of endorsements, in low-key language:
Gabbard "has a notably mixed voting record, and associations that veer from certain progressive causes to the apparent
courting of strongmen such as Narendra
Modi, Bashar al-Assad, and Abdel Fattah el-Sisi (not to mention Trump) - this zigzagging path through positions is vexing."
Bannon was so impressed with Gabbard as a potential ally that as he brokered a meeting between her and the newly-installed President
Donald Trump . Tulsi jumped at the opportunity:
in her own words , "I
walked out thinking that there may be some opportunity to work with this administration to shift our foreign policy in a more positive,
less destructive direction."
Amongst other obvious obstacles to a Democratic congresswomen freelancing coordination with the White House, her dream of a foreign
policy "shift" getting a presidential stamp burst when she went to Damascus,
met Bashar Assad , and claimed that she was "skeptical" of claims that Assad's government was to blame for Syria's genocide.
Those Assad apologetics are rightly one reason why Gabbard's once-rising-star among Democrats is stalling. But her pro-Modi apologetics,
far less examined and far more seldom interrogated in the U.S. media, should have been just as good a reason to repudiate her candidacy.
A fellow at the University of Oxford's Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism and a graduate of the London School
of Economics, Shrenik Rao is a digital entrepreneur and filmmaker. Rao revived the
Madras Courier , a 232-year-old newspaper, as a digital publication of which
he is the editor-in-chief.
Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign
with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful
to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump -
helped along by Aras and Emin.
What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?
I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.
Best
Rob Goldstone
On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:53, Donald Trump Jr. wrote:
Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and
if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?
Leading up to the Mueller report, one of the long-promised "gotchas" peddled by the anti-Trump
media is that that Donald Trump Jr. would be indicted over a June 9, 2016 meeting in Trump Tower
with Russian representatives who promised negative information on Hillary Clinton.
Keep in mind, the Russian attorney who sought the discussion - Natalia Veselnitskaya -
met with Fusion GPS co-founder
Glenn Simpson
before and after the Trump Tower meeting.
Fusion was hired by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to produce the now-infamous "Steele
Dossier."
Also keep in mind that Trump Jr. reportedly shut down the meeting when it was obviously not
going to bear fruit.
Obvious setups
aside, former US Attorney Joe diGenova has penned an Op-Ed for
Fox
News
excoriating the media
for 'recklessly' promoting an untested
falsehood; that the meeting was illegal in the first place.
Don Jr. and the Trump Tower meeting -- What happens when fake news collides with
zero intent. The reporting on
Donald
Trump, Jr.'s treatment
in the
Mueller
report
has been woefully inaccurate.
The president's eldest son, an outspoken and unapologetic conservative, is a favorite punching
bag of the left. For more than two years, liberal journalists and shrieking "#resistance" activists
have salivated over the thought of seeing Don Jr. carted off in handcuffs.
To their dismay, there is only one crucial takeaway from the
Mueller
report's conclusions
about the utterly inconsequential "Trump Tower meeting" between Don Jr.,
several Russians, and others: neither Don Jr. nor anyone else involved in the meeting was charged
with any crime.
The reasons are clear. The entire theory about what was potentially illegal about the meeting
was speculative and untested. What's more, even if it were illegal, the report concluded that Don
Jr. didn't have the "willful" intent to break the law that would be necessary to make it a crime.
In their disappointment, Don Jr.'s detractors have latched on to a new theory: that he was
simply "too stupid" to be charged with a crime because he didn't know that his conduct was illegal.
They hang this blatant misconstruction on these words from the report: "the Office did not
obtain admissible evidence likely to meet the government's burden to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that these individuals acted 'willfully,' i.e. with general knowledge of the illegality of
their conduct."
That's not just some minor technicality, absent which Robert Mueller's prosecutors would have
had Don Jr. in shackles while revelers in cat-eared pink hats danced in the streets. It's a central
element of the offense they were investigating, and they decided to clear Don Jr. because without
it there is no crime.
One often-used definition of "willful" intent states that it "requires proof beyond a reasonable
doubt that the defendant knew his or her conduct was unlawful and intended to do something that the
law forbids; that the defendant acted with a purpose to disobey or disregard the law."
In essence, in order to be charged with conspiring to cheat, you have to have been actually
meaning to cheat. That's the law. Without intent, there is no crime. And Mueller's team, even his
hand-picked Democrat attack dog Andrew Weissmann, knew they didn't have evidence to convince a jury
that Don Jr. meant to circumvent election laws when he typed "I love it" in response to a
tangentially-related British publicist's suggestion the Russian government might have "information
that would incriminate Hillary." Don Jr. even voluntarily released his email correspondence related
to that meeting.
But even if there were the requisite intent, the Mueller report still exonerates Don Jr.,
stating that "the government would likely encounter difficulty proving beyond a reasonable doubt
that the value of the promised information exceeded the threshold for a criminal violation."
Did you catch that?
For the English speakers among you, let me translate that from Weissmann-speak: "This 'crime' we
thought up as a way to nail Don Jr. is so speculative and unprecedented, we don't think there's a
court in the land that would let this fly."
The entire notion of a criminal conspiracy is predicated on the idea that the federal election
law's ban on campaigns taking "contributions" or "things of value" from foreign nationals also
applies to "dirt" on opposing candidates.
That's hardly an established interpretation of the law. In fact, no one has ever been convicted
of something similar. If "dirt" is a "thing of value" for campaign finance purposes, that is a
dangerously radical innovation with huge potential First Amendment implications.
Personally, I think it's a completely untenable interpretation, but don't take my word it.
Mueller and his team considered it, as well -- and then rejected it as too "difficult to prove" in
their report.
I wonder how many of the journalists calling Don Jr. stupid were so certain about this
far-fetched legal theory. I further wonder how many of them felt the same way when foreign national
Christopher Steele handed the Hillary Clinton campaign a whole dossier of "dirt" on President Trump
-- at a hefty, agreed-upon price, no less.
The whole thing is pure "#resistance" fantasy.
It was reckless for the media to promote the Trump Tower meeting as a crime, and it was
irresponsible for Mueller's report to discuss the matter using language that allows people who hate
Don Jr. to continue in that delusion.
Skripal events probably helped to advance this line of investigation. So in a way UK intelligence services put their own
stooge on the line of fire.
Notable quotes:
"... Russian prosecutors on Monday claimed that Magnitsky and several other people familiar with Browder's illicit activities in Russia may have been killed on his order. They said a new criminal case has been opened against Browder in Russia, and that Moscow will seek his extradition as an alleged ringleader of an international criminal enterprise involved in money laundering ..."
"... The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. Oktay Gasanov was the first of the four, dying in October 2007; while Magnitsky's death in November 2009 was the last. By the time of his death, Magnitsky had spent almost a year in pre-trial detention. The two others were Valery Kurochkin and Sergey Korobeinikov, who died in April 2008 and September 2008, respectively. ..."
"... Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky, he said. The prosecutor stressed that Russia didn't conduct detailed studies into how the suspected poison affects living organisms, but several research institutions based in the US, France and Italy did. ..."
"... The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of Magnitsky. They cited journalist Oleg Lurie, who shared a prison cell with Magnitsky before the latter's death. Speaking under oath during a court hearing in New York, Lurie said that his cellmate had complained to him that Browder's lawyers were pressuring him into signing a false statement. Magnitsky's testimony claimed that he had uncovered a conspiracy to embezzle taxpayers' money involving Russian officials. ..."
"... The Russian prosecutors said Browder allegedly wanted to silence his employee after obtaining the false claim. The statement itself was used to blame Russian officials for Magnitsky's death and accuse the Russian government of a cover-up. ..."
"... Described by critics as a 'vulture capitalist,' Browder seemed quite comfortable earning millions of dollars in the financial wild west. In 2005, as fallen oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky was standing trial for tax evasion, Browder scolded him on the BBC for using personal wealth to grasp at political power, and for leaving "in his wake aggrieved investors too numerous to count." He was also a staunch public supporter of the policies of Russian President Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... The investor then reinvented himself as an anti-Putin figure, using the death of Magnitsky to lobby various countries to impose sanctions on the Russian officials he blamed for his employee's death. The US Magnitsky Act was passed in 2012, allowing people accused by Washington of human rights violations to be targeted. However, it is perceived by the Kremlin as just a tool to restrain Russia for the sake of global political and economic competition. ..."
"... Among Browder's latest exploits is playing a role in the 'Russiagate' story. A key part of the elusive search for collusion between US President Donald Trump and the Russian government is a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer. The meeting was apparently organized with a view to lobbying for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Its architect, Browder, has therefore been eager to lend his expertise on 'Russian machinations' to US lawmakers and media outlets. ..."
"... If you like this story, share it with a friend! ..."
Kremlin
critic Bill Browder may have given the order for his employee Sergei Magnitsky to be poisoned
with a rare toxin in a Russian prison cell, along with other suspects in a tax-evasion probe
against him, prosecutors have said. British financier Browder was once a well-connected
investor in post-Soviet Russia, but he became a fugitive from the law in the country after
being accused of financial crimes. In the West, however, he is best known as the employer of
Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian accountant who died in police custody while being investigated in
connection to the Browder case. Magnitsky's death became an international scandal, with Browder
accusing Russian officials of killing him.
Russian prosecutors on Monday claimed that Magnitsky and several other people familiar with
Browder's illicit activities in Russia may have been killed on his order. They said a new
criminal case has been opened against Browder in Russia, and that Moscow will seek his
extradition as an alleged ringleader of an international criminal enterprise involved in money
laundering.
The prosecutors identified four people who were suspects in the Browder case, all of whom
died over the course of less than two years as the investigation against him unfolded. Oktay
Gasanov was the first of the four, dying in October 2007; while Magnitsky's death in November
2009 was the last. By the time of his death, Magnitsky had spent almost a year in pre-trial
detention. The two others were Valery Kurochkin and Sergey Korobeinikov, who died in April 2008
and September 2008, respectively.
Korobeinikov died after falling off a high-rise building, while the others had health
complications. The Russian prosecutors believe all four of them may have been killed with a
rare water-soluble compound of aluminum. Each of the men showed symptoms consistent with being
poisoned by the toxin prior to their deaths, while Korobeinikov had traces of it in his liver,
according to a post mortem. An investigation into four possible murders has been
opened.
Considering that the three individuals, with the exception of Magnitsky, died within
months of each other while being investigated as part of Browder's case, "it is highly likely
that they were killed to get rid of accomplices who could give an incriminating testimony
against Browder," a senior official with the Russian General Prosecutor's office told
journalists. The same may be true for Magnitsky, he said. The prosecutor stressed that Russia
didn't conduct detailed studies into how the suspected poison affects living organisms, but
several research institutions based in the US, France and Italy did.
The prosecutors claim that Browder was the party who benefited most from the death of
Magnitsky. They cited journalist Oleg Lurie, who shared a prison cell with Magnitsky before the
latter's death. Speaking under oath during a court hearing in New York, Lurie said that his
cellmate had complained to him that Browder's lawyers were pressuring him into signing a false
statement. Magnitsky's testimony claimed that he had uncovered a conspiracy to embezzle
taxpayers' money involving Russian officials.
The Russian prosecutors said Browder allegedly wanted to silence his employee after
obtaining the false claim. The statement itself was used to blame Russian officials for
Magnitsky's death and accuse the Russian government of a cover-up.
Last year, Browder was sentenced by a Russian court to nine years in prison for tax evasion.
The trial was held in absentia and Moscow failed to have him extradited to serve the term. The
prosecutors said that they will renew attempts to get custody of Browder as part of the new
criminal case, using a UN convention on fighting transnational crime to have him arrested.
Browder is a US-born British financier, whose change of citizenship had the benefit of
allowing him to avoid paying tax on foreign earnings. However, he claimed the switch was
prompted by his family being persecuted in the US during the McCarthyism witch hunt, while the
UK seemed like the land of law and order.
He made a fortune in Russia during the country's chaotic transition to a market economy,
having invested before there was a stock exchange in Moscow. His Hermitage Capital Management
fund was a leading foreign investment entity in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
Described by critics as a 'vulture capitalist,' Browder seemed quite comfortable earning
millions of dollars in the financial wild west. In 2005, as fallen oil tycoon Mikhail
Khodorkovsky was standing trial for tax evasion, Browder scolded him on the BBC for using personal
wealth to grasp at political power, and for leaving "in his wake aggrieved investors too
numerous to count." He was also a staunch public supporter of the policies of Russian President
Vladimir Putin.
The transformation of his public image from a financial shark into a human rights crusader
started when Browder himself entered the spotlight of Russian law enforcement. In 2007, the
foundation he ran was targeted by a probe into possible large-scale embezzlement of Russian
taxpayers' money. Magnitsky, who worked for Browder and had knowledge of his firms' finances,
was arrested and held in pre-trial detention until his death in November 2009. The British
businessman insisted that the entire case was fabricated and that Magnitsky had been
assassinated for exposing a criminal scheme involving several Russian tax officials.
The investor then reinvented himself as an anti-Putin figure, using the death of
Magnitsky to lobby various countries to impose sanctions on the Russian officials he blamed for
his employee's death. The US Magnitsky Act was passed in 2012, allowing people accused by
Washington of human rights violations to be targeted. However, it is perceived by the Kremlin
as just a tool to restrain Russia for the sake of global political and economic
competition.
Browder's new-found status as a rights advocate and self-proclaimed worst enemy of Putin
helps him deflect Russia's attempts to prosecute him. On several occasions, Russia filed
international arrest warrants against him with Interpol, which even led to his brief detention
in Spain last May.
Among Browder's latest exploits is playing a role in the 'Russiagate' story. A key part
of the elusive search for collusion between US President Donald Trump and the Russian
government is a meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer. The meeting was
apparently organized with a view to lobbying for the repeal of the Magnitsky Act. Its
architect, Browder, has therefore been eager to lend his expertise on 'Russian machinations' to
US lawmakers and media outlets.
"... Even then, the Russophobes have been frantically making a mountain out of a molehill. We investigated the Russian troll farm in St. Petersburg, for example, and found that it was actually the hobby horse of a mid-sized Oligarch. The latter had been minding his own business trolling the Russian Internet, as the oligarchs of that country are wont to do – until the US sponsored coup in Kiev in 2014 became the occasion for Washington's relentless vilification of Russia and Putin. ..."
"... Still, there is no evidence that this two-bit hobby farm was an instrument of Kremlin policy or that its tiny $2 million budget could hold a candle to the $200 million per year round-the-clock propaganda of Voice of America, and multiples thereof by the other Washington propaganda venues. ..."
"... In any event, turning the Trump Tower meeting into evidence of Russian meddling and collusion actually gives the old saw about turning a molehill into a mountain an altogether new meaning. That is to say, on any given evening Anderson Cooper will be interviewing a lathered-up ex-general or ex-spook admonishing that Natalia Veselnitskaya was actually a nefarious Russian "cut out" sent by Putin to infiltrate the Trump campaign. ..."
"... The fact is, the meeting happened because Veselnitskaya wanted to reach the Trump campaign in behalf of her anti-Magnitsky Act agenda, and to do so used the good offices of what appears to be the Russian Justin Bieber! ..."
"... Specifically, the offer came to Don Trump Jr. via a London-based PR flack named Rob Goldstone, a music publicist who knew the Trumps through the Miss Universe pageant that was held in Moscow in 2013. Goldstone didn't know his head from a hole in the ground when it comes to international affairs or Russian politics, but he did represent the Russian pop singer Emin Agalarov, whose father was also a Trump-style real estate developer and had been involved in the 2013 pageant ..."
"... More fantastically yet, Natalia had meet with Simpson both before and after the Trump Tower meeting apparently to be coached by him on her anti-Magnitsky pitch to the Trump campaign. ..."
"... So if Veselnitskaya was part of a Russian collusion conspiracy, then so was the Glenn Simpson, the midwife of the Trump Dossier! ..."
Political War! Washington Goes Full Retard on the Russia Hoax
by David
Stockman Posted on
August 08, 2018 August 7, 2018 It's hard to identify anything that's more uncoupled from
reality than the Donald's Trade War and reckless Fiscal Debauch. Together they will soon
monkey-hammer today's delirious Wall Street revilers and send main street's aging and anemic
recovery back into the drink.
Except, except. When it comes to unreality, Trump's crackpot economics is actually more
than rivaled by the full retard Russophobia of the MSM, the Dems and the nomenclatura of
Imperial Washington.
In fact, their groupthink mania about the alleged Russian attack on American democracy is
so devoid of fact, logic, context, proportion and self-awareness as to give the Donald's
tweet storms an aura of sanity by comparison.
Their endless obsession with the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a Russian nobody by
the name of Natalia Veselnitskaya proves the point. She was actually in New York doing god's
work, as it were, defending a Russian company against hokey money-laundering charges related
to the abominable Magnitsky Act and its contemptible promoter, Bill Browder.
The latter had pulled off an epic multi-billion swindle during the wild west days of
post-Soviet Russia and was essentially chased from the country in 2005 by Putin for hundreds
of millions in tax evasion. Thereafter he turned the murky prison death of his accountant,
Sergei Magnitsky, who was also charged with massive tax evasion, into a revenge crusade
against Putin.
That resulted in a huge lobbying campaign subsidized by Browder's illicit billions and
spearheaded by the Senate's most bloodthirsty trio of warmongers – Senators McCain,
Graham and Cardin – to enact the 2012 Magnitsky Act.
The latter, of course, is the very excrescence of Imperial Washington's arrogant meddling
in the internal affairs of other countries. It imposes sweeping sanctions on Russians (and
other foreigners) deemed complicit in Magnitsky's death in a Russian jail and for other
alleged human rights violations in Russia and elsewhere.
Needless to say, imperial pretense doesn't get any more sanctimonious than this. Deep
State apparatchiks in the US Treasury Department get to try Russian citizens in absentia and
without due process for vaguely worded crimes under American law that were allegedly
committed in Russia, and then to seize their property and persons when involved in any act of
global commerce where Washington can browbeat local satrapies and "allies" into
cooperation!
Only in an imperial capital steeped in self-conferred entitlement to function as global
hegemon would such a preposterous extraterritorial arrangement be even thinkable. After all,
what happens to Russians in Russian prisons is absolutely none of Washington's business
– nor by any stretch of the imagination does it pose any threat whatsoever to America's
homeland security.
So the irony of the Trump Tower nothingburger is that the alleged Russian agent was here
fighting Washington's meddling in Russia , not hooking up with Trump's campaign
to further a Kremlin plot to attack American democracy.
You could properly call this a case of the pot calling the kettle black, but Imperial
Washington and its shills among the ranks of Dem politicians and megaphones in the MSM
wouldn't get the joke in the slightest. That's because Washington is in the business of
meddling in the domestic affairs of virtually every country in the world – friend, foe
and also-ran – on a massive scale never before imagined in human history.
That's what the hideously excessive $75 billion budget of the so-called
17-agency "intelligence community" (IC) gets you. To wit, a backdoor into every access point
and traffic exchange node on the entire global internet, and from there the ability to hack,
surveil, exfiltrate or corrupt the communications of any government, political party,
business or private citizen virtually anywhere on the planet.
And, no, this isn't being done for the noble purpose of rooting-out the terrorist needles
in the global haystack of communications and Internet traffic. It's done because the IC has
the resources to do it and because it has invested itself with endless missions of global
hegemony.
These self-serving missions, in turn, justify its existence, keep the politicians of
Washington well stocked in scary bedtime stories and, most important of all, ensure that the
fiscal gravy train remains loaded to the gills and that the gilded prosperity of the beltway
never falters.
Indeed, if Washington were looking for corporate pen name it would be Meddling "R" Us. And
we speak here not merely of its vast and secretive spy apparatus, but also of its completely
visible everyday intrusions in the affairs of other countries via the billions that are
channeled through the National Endowment for Democracy and the vast NGO network funded by the
State Department, DOD and other organs of the national security complex.
The $750 million per year Board For International Broadcasting, for example,
is purely in the propaganda business; and despite the Cold War's end 27 years ago, still
carries out relentless "agit prop" in Russia and among the reincarnated states of the old
Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact via Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the Voice of
America.
For example, here is a Voice of America tweet from this morning falsely charging Russia
with the occupation of the former Soviet state of Georgia.
In fact, Russia came to the aid of the Russian-speaking population of the breakaway
province of South Ossetia in 2008; the latter felt imperiled by the grandiose pretensions of
the corrupt Saakashvili government in Tbilisi, which had unilaterally launched an
indiscriminate military assault on the major cities of the province.
Moreover, even an EU commission investigation came to that conclusion way back in 2009
shortly after the events that the inhabitants of South Ossetia feared would lead to a
genocidal invasion by Georgia's military.
An investigation into last year's Russia-Georgia war delivered a damning indictment of
President Mikheil Saakashvili today, accusing Tbilisi of launching an indiscriminate
artillery barrage on the city of Tskhinvali that started the war.
In more than 1,000 pages of analysis, documentation and witness statements, the most
exhaustive inquiry into the five-day conflict dismissed Georgian claims that the artillery
attack was in response to a Russian invasion
The EU-commissioned report, by a fact-finding mission of more than 20 political,
military, human rights and international law experts led by the Swiss diplomat, Heidi
Tagliavini, was unveiled in Brussels today after nine months of work.
Flatly dismissing Saakashvili's version, the report said: "There was no ongoing
armed attack by Russia before the start of the Georgian operation Georgian claims of a
large-scale presence of Russian armed forces in South Ossetia prior to the Georgian offensive
could not be substantiated
The point is, whatever the rights and wrongs of the statelets and provinces attempting to
sort themselves out after the fall of the Soviet Union, this was all happening on Russia's
doorsteps and was none of Washington business even at the time. But wasting taxpayer money 10
years later by siding with the revanchist claims of the Georgian government is just plain
ludicrous.
It's also emblematic of why the Imperial City is so clueless about the rank hypocrisy
implicit in the Russian meddling hoax. Believing that America is the Indispensable Nation and
that Washington operates by its own hegemonic rules, they are now Shocked, Shocked! to find
that the victims of their blatant intrusions might actually endeavor to fight back.
Even then, the Russophobes have been frantically making a mountain out of a molehill.
We investigated the Russian troll farm in St. Petersburg, for example, and found that it was
actually the hobby horse of a mid-sized Oligarch. The latter had been minding his own
business trolling the Russian Internet, as the oligarchs of that country are wont to do
– until the US sponsored coup in Kiev in 2014 became the occasion for Washington's
relentless vilification of Russia and Putin.
Accordingly, this particular Russian patriot hired a few dozen students at $3-4 per hour
who mostly spoke English as a third-language. Operating on 12-hour shifts, they randomly
trolled Facebook and other US based social media, posting crude and sometimes incoherent
political messages from virtually all points on the compass – messages that were
instantly lost in the great sea of social media trivia and mendacity.
Still, there is no evidence that this two-bit hobby farm was an instrument of Kremlin
policy or that its tiny $2 million budget could hold a candle to the $200
million per year round-the-clock propaganda of Voice of America, and multiples
thereof by the other Washington propaganda venues.
In any event, turning the Trump Tower meeting into evidence of Russian meddling and
collusion actually gives the old saw about turning a molehill into a mountain an altogether
new meaning. That is to say, on any given evening Anderson Cooper will be interviewing a
lathered-up ex-general or ex-spook admonishing that Natalia Veselnitskaya was actually a
nefarious Russian "cut out" sent by Putin to infiltrate the Trump campaign.
Really?
We have no brief for Vlad Putin, but one thing we are quite sure of is that he is anything
but stupid. So would he really send a secret agent to Trump Tower – who neither speaks
nor writes a word of English and has been to America only once – in order to plot a
surreptitious attempt to manipulate the American election?
The fact is, the meeting happened because Veselnitskaya wanted to reach the Trump
campaign in behalf of her anti-Magnitsky Act agenda, and to do so used the good offices of
what appears to be the Russian Justin Bieber!
Specifically, the offer came to Don Trump Jr. via a London-based PR flack named Rob
Goldstone, a music publicist who knew the Trumps through the Miss Universe pageant that was
held in Moscow in 2013. Goldstone didn't know his head from a hole in the ground when it
comes to international affairs or Russian politics, but he did represent the Russian pop
singer Emin Agalarov, whose father was also a Trump-style real estate developer and had been
involved in the 2013 pageant .
Said the London PR flack in an email to Don Jr:
"Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting .The
Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered
to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would
incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your
father .( this is) "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."
And a very big so what!
For one thing, the last "Crown prosecutor of Russia" was assassinated by the Bolsheviks in
1917, suggesting Goldstone's grasp of the contemporary Russian government was well less than
rudimentary.
Secondly, there was neither a crime nor national security issue involved when a campaign
seeks to dig-up dirt from foreign nationals. The crime is when they pay for it, and do not
report the expenditure to the Federal Elections Commission.
Of course, that's exactly what Hillary Clinton's campaign did with its multi-million
funding of the Trump Dossier, generated by foreign national Christopher Steele and
intermediated to the FBI and other IC agencies by Fusion GPS.
And that gets us to the mind-boggling silliness of the whole Trump Tower affair.
Self-evidently, the dirt on Hillary suggestion was a come-on so that Veselnitskaya (through
her Russian translator) could make a pitch against the Magnitsky Act; and to point out that
after 33,000 Russian babies had been adopted by Americans before its enactment, that avenue
of adoption had been stopped cold when the Kremlin found it necessary to retaliate.
Don's Jr. emails to his secretary from the meeting long ago proved that he immediately
recognized Natalia's bait and switch operation, and that he wanted to be summoned to the
phone so he could end what he saw was a complete waste of the campaign's time.
But here's the joker in the woodpile. Its seem that Glenn Simpson, proprietor of Fusion
GPs, had also been hired by Veselnitskaya Russian clients to make a case in Washington
against the Magnitsky Act, and to also dig up dirt on the scoundrel behind it: Bill
Browder.
More fantastically yet, Natalia had meet with Simpson both before and after the Trump
Tower meeting apparently to be coached by him on her anti-Magnitsky pitch to the Trump
campaign.
So if Veselnitskaya was part of a Russian collusion conspiracy, then so was the Glenn
Simpson, the midwife of the Trump Dossier!
It doesn't get any crazier than that – meaning that the Donald could not be more
correct about this entire farce:
This is a terrible situation and Attorney General Jeff Sessions should stop this Rigged
Witch Hunt right now, before it continues to stain our country any further. Bob Mueller is
totally conflicted, and his 17 Angry Democrats that are doing his dirty work are a disgrace
to USA!
In truth, the only basis for Natalia Veselnitskaya's alleged Putin ties was through
Russia's prosecutor general, Yuri Chaika.
And exactly why was Chaika interested in making American contacts?
Why, because he was pursuing one Bill Browder, fugitive from Russian justice and the
driving force behind the abominable Magnitsky Act – an instrument of meddling in the
domestic affairs of foreign countries like no other. As one report described it:
Chaika's foray into American politics began in earnest in April 2016. That is when his
office gave Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher and three other US representatives a
confidential letter detailing American investor Bill Browder's "illegal scheme of buying up
Gazprom shares without permission of the Government of Russia" between 1999 and 2006, one
month after Rohrabacher returned from Moscow.
As it happened, Veselnitskaya had apparently brought a memo to the Trump Tower meeting
that contained many of the same talking points as one written by Chaika's office two months
earlier.
There you have it.
At the heart of the Russian collusion hoax and the wellspring of the current Russophobia
is nothing more than a half-baked effort by Russians to tell their side of the Magnitsky
story, and to expose the real villain in the piece – a monumentally greedy hedge fund
operator who had stolen the Russian people blind and then conveniently gave up his American
citizenship so that he would neither do time in a Russian jail or pay taxes in America.
Spoiler Alert for next part: When both economic policy and politics have gone full retard
in the Imperial City is there anything which could possibly go wrong – that might
pollute the punch bowl on Wall Street?
The Trump Tower meeting was arranged by Fusion GPS associate Rob Goldstone, who said during
Congressional testimony reviewed by
Breitbart that he believes the June 9, 2016 meeting was a "bait and switch" by a Russian
lobbyist who promised "dirt" on Hillary Clinton, and admitted that he used hyperbolic language
on purpose to ensure that the meeting would take place.
"I, therefore, used the strongest hyperbolic language in order to secure this request from
Donald Trump Jr. based on the bare facts I was given," said Goldstone, a UK publicist and music
manager.
"It was an example of, I was given very limited information, and my job was to get a
meeting, and so I used my professional use of words to emphasize what my client had only
given bare-bones information about, in order to get the attention of Mr. Trump Jr. " -Rob
Goldstone
Goldstone then said " it appeared to me to have been a bait and switch of somebody who
appeared to be lobbying for what I now understood to be the Magnitsky act," - which sanctions
Russian officials thought to be involved in the death of a Russian tax accountant.
Fusion GPS associate Natalia Veselnitskaya, an attorney for Russian businessman and Fusion
GPS client Denis Katsy, said that Emin Agalarov - the son of Russian oligarch Aras Agalarov -
told her to contact his representative, Irakly "Ike" Kaveladze to set up the Trump Tower
meeting, which Kaveladze attended.
While both Agalarov and Katsyv opposed the Magnitsky act, Veselnitskaya worked only for
Katsyv, while approaching Agalarov and his associates to participate in the Trump Tower
meeting. Of ntoe, Agalarov organized the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow when it was
partially owned by Donald Trump.
Veselnitskaya said Agalarov told her to get in touch with Kaveladze about the meeting
because he had connections with the Trump team.
Veselnitskaya said she made a point of asking Goldstone -- who she mistakenly thought was
a lawyer -- whether it was OK to include Akhmetshin, given that he was a registered lobbyist.
Goldstone told her it was fine, she said. -
NBC News
On June 3, 2016, Goldstone sent an email to Trump Jr. on behalf of Emin Agalarov to set up
the meeting. Goldstone was described last July as "associated with Fusion GPS" by Mark Corallo
- spokesman for Trump's outside legal counsel, according to the
Washington Post .
"Specifically, we have learned that the person who sought the meeting is associated with
Fusion GPS , a firm which according to public reports, was retained by Democratic operatives
to develop opposition research on the president and which commissioned the phony Steele
dossier" -Mark Corallo
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting
offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would
incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its
government's support for Mr. Trump -- helped along by Aras and Emin.
Trump Jr. replied to Goldstone that " if it's what you say I love it especially later in the
summer ."
Breitbart News previously
reported that Russian-born Washington lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin, who attended the meeting
with Veselnitskaya, evidenced a larger relationship with Fusion GPS and the controversial
firm's co-founder Glenn Simpson , according to Akhmetshin's testimony before the same
committee. -
Breitbart
Fusion's fingerprints are all over this...
Hours before Veselnitskaya attended the Trump Tower meeting to lobby Trump Jr. about the
Magnitsky act, she met with Fusion GPS co-founder
Glenn Simpson .
While most people know that Fusion GPS was paid by the Clinton campaign to produce the
infamous "Steele Dossier" - assembled by former MI6 spy Christopher Steele, Fusion was also
working for a Russian businessman who wanted the Magnitsky act repealed, Denis Katsyv, and
Veselnitskaya was his lawyer who was given special permission by the Obama DOJ to enter the
U.S. to represent him.
In late November of 2017, The Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross reported that
heavily redacted Fusion GPS bank records reveal DNC law firm Perkins Coie
paid Fusion a total of $1,024,408 in 2016 for opposition research on then-candidate Donald
Trump - including the 34-page dossier.
Ross also reported that law firm Baker Hostelter paid Fusion $523,651 between March and
October 2016 on behalf of a company owned by Katsyv
to research Bill Browder , a London banker who helped push through the Magnitsky Act.
Keep in mind, Veselnitskaya really doesn't like Donald Trump based on several archived
Facebook posts:
I'm unsure of the zeitgeist being proposed here but it sure sounds like you are offering
up the theory that the Deep State actually wanted Trump.
Yet he..."colluded"...among outside parties like the DNC funded Fusion, Perkins Coie, MI6
and then the FBI, the CIA, DNI and the DoJ to manufacture FALSE EVIDENCE.
In order to produce that "evidence" to a FISA court, in order to "legally" surveil (with
taxpayer funds, of course) the very same man (and his associates).
So as to, gather incriminating evidence against him (Trump) so he could be removed from
office in disgrace (almost immediately) because he is actually the one the Deep State wants
in office, as President of the United States.
The only one telling a different story is the guy who's trying desperately to stay out of
prison. Not the best witness. Particularly since he didn't remember for two years prior.
Reasonable doubt anyone?
So hold on this chick is employed by Fusion GPS- who was paid to concoct a dossier against
Trump- using Russian sources and UK intelligence, has dinner with the head of Fusion GPS the
night before the meeting, she gets the meeting offering information- within minutes changes
the course of the meeting- realizing something was wrong, Donald Trump Jr ends the meeting-
and the crime is Trump may have known about it??
It's a set up plain and simple. These fucking people are dirty AS SHIT- including the
Brown Clown Kenyan.
The big story is using opposition research- paid for- submitted to the court as proof to
secure a FISA warrant, and if they didn't know the information was false and paid for- what
the fuck is the "I" in FBI for??
April 2018...."Michael is in business, he is really a businessman, a fairly big business,
as I understand it. I don't know his business." He "also practices law." And, "I have many
attorneys. Sadly, I have so many attorneys you wouldn't even believe it." Cohen handled only
a "tiny, tiny little fraction of my overall legal work."
According to Adam Davidson of the New Yorker, Cohen was not part of the Trump
Organization's Legal Team in any sense. Alan Garten was the Trump Org's attorney on real
estate matters and Marc Kasowitz usually represented Trump in important cases.
Cohen's legal education was not stellar by any sense of the word. Cohen often told this
joke:
Q: "What do you call a lawyer who graduated with a 2.0?"
A: "Counselor."
Would Trump actually hire a guy like this to be his "personal" attorney? He was
effectively a trip-and-fall attorney up to the point he was brought into the organization by
Trump Sr. In truth, Cohen was a fairly savvy real estate investor and, as such, was appointed
Trump's "deal maker" for international projects. He was also Trump's personal "fixer." Cohen
made things 'go away.' You don't need to be an attorney to "make things go away."
It's doubtful that there was a legitimate "attorney/client" relationship there.
In any case, reports are out tonight that the Trump Organization's CFO has been subpoenaed
to testify in the Cohen investigation. Why? Allen Weisselberg's name came up in the recording
that Lanny Davis released yesterday. While everyone was getting their thongs in a twist about
who said "cash," the Weisselberg mention was actually the biggest shoe to drop on that tape.
Weisselberg has a thorough knowledge of all Trump's deals, payments and income.
It was setup by Democrats trying to tie Trump to Russia
The Russian lawyer was briefed before and after the meeting by Fusion GPS
The lawyer was offering dirt on Clinton, but lied and had another agenda
What people should care about, is that Democrats were attempting to frame Trump, in the
dirtiest campaign trick in my lifetime, and using it as a pretext to get the government to
spy on Trump. But you're right that the Dems care about it, because they think (magically)
that it means Trump was colluding with Russia. LOL Consider, wouldn't Trump be doing the USA
a great favor by obtaining Hillary's emails from Russia, which would prove that Putin was
blackmailing her and Obama. The Democrats are completely ignoring this narrative, as if it's
Trump's fault Putin has her emails. LOL
You're a funny guy...The perverse inquisition by the Purple Inquisitors strike again.
Nothing but a pathetic Op to "Sting" Trump by the Psyop Deep State Dip Shits. Cohen squeals
on cue, check his Cayman Isle bank account. Mr Mueller is beyond desperate as you should be
well able to relate to. Ha F'n Ha, but you'll always have Hillary's " "Precious" pee pee
dossier...
Trump knew about a meeting re: oppo research on Hellary. Which is the same crime Hellary
and the DNC did with the bogus Russo 8ntel from the Steele Dossier against What is good for
the goose not good for the gander.
It's like a George Webb wayback machine.
Also funny how no one ever mentions that the Podesta Group closed shop immediately after
George Webb filed his lawsuit against them.
Who were in bed with Fusion... who were in bed with the DNC... who were in bed with Awan.
Also funny how that fake ass Rosenstein Russian indictment stole George Webbs lawsuits
actblues paragraph almost word for word, but substituting Russians for Awan.
The Awan who also downloaded terabytes of congressional data From Pakistan, ffs.
My, what a wicked web they weave.
Cohen is a plant. The guy was in no danger of anything happening to him. Once the DOJ took
everything they broke the law for lawyer client confidentiality. Cohen could just stfu and
say nothing and no judge would prosecute him given he never broke a law... So why is he
singing like a bird? Because its all a fucking setup.
Who knows, maybe he disliked Trump, Maybe his bitch wife made him do it at the end of the
day its his word against a bunch of other people.
Incredible what they are allowing Mueller to do. He basically makes it clear to the person
that if they do not say what they want to hear they are going to ruin them financially, so
people say tell me what you want me to say, and Mueller backs off. I am blown away this
charade is being allowed to go forward. Mueller has done more to destroy the faith people
have in our justice system than any other figure in our modern history. Truly, Mueller should
be rotting in prison for a very long time since it is clear that he is attempting a silent
coup, the US and the American public be damned. This is all about Mueller and appeasing his
puppet masters.
But slowly, ever so slowly, this charade is unraveling. This is throwing his constituents
a bone.
How do I really feel? FUCK YOU, Mueller. Fuck you and your outsized ego.
Was just reported Cohen has already testified to Congress under oath Trump didn't know and
Lanny Davis is accusing the Trump team of leaking this made up story...Cohen getting the
treatment by Trump..
President Trump's former longtime personal attorney, Michael Cohen, is prepared to tell
special counsel Robert Mueller that then-candidate Donald Trump knew in advance about the June
2016 Trump tower meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and Fusion GPS associate Natalia
Veselnitskaya - who is not a fan of Trump Sr., and several other individuals - including Cohen
who says he was there, reports
CNN .
"... FUsion GPS arranged the meeting at trump tower. ..."
"... IF Misfud told papaD that he had access to Hillary's emails, why did they not bother looking for him for 9 months and then let him walk free? Because he was a set up. ..."
'Collusion' would mean actively conspiring with a foreign government. To this day there is no evidence that the Russian lawyer
was working for the Russian government (I have seen some media simply assert that she has Kremlin 'connections', whatever that's
supposed to mean). Also, why exactly would the Trump campaign have any need to meet with someone promising dirt if, as the Steele
Dossier claims, Trump had been a Russian agent for 5 years? The Kremlin would surely have already been providing any possible
dirt, and more besides.
And is this really where we are now? Is this what we've come to? Russia is a country of 144 million people. Is simply being
Russian, or talking to a Russian, now a crime? Because that's what our current atmosphere seems to think. It's shocking to see
so many people, especially supposedly tolerant and multicultural liberals, ignore any distinction between a government and private
citizens, and engage in what can only be called bigotry about 'Russians'. Replace 'Russian' with 'Jew', or a slur like 'Jap',
and how incredibly ugly the atmosphere has become in the last 18 months or so becomes obvious.
That Trump is comically corrupt is a given. But the two central claims of Russiagate were that a. Trump is a Russian agent
(or at least being blackmailed by Russia), and that b. Russia in some way hacked or interfered in the election to get Trump elected.
There is, to this day, exactly zero evidence for either.
No, his son meeting with a Russian citizen promising political dirt (even if dirt had been exchanged, which it wasn't because
she was lying and just wanted to get a meeting to lobby for some business interests), doesn't constitute 'collusion', or interference
by a foreign government.
Nor does some St. Petersburg company spending a paltry amount of money to run a clickbait ad revenue scheme on Facebook. Nor
do Macedonian teenagers running troll accounts (Macedonia isn't even in Russia, and to this day I've never seen any evidence that
any Russian, much less the Russian government, is behind their activities).
The above two are especially damning, because they make it painfully obvious that Russiagate has exactly nothing. In the absence
of any evidence that Russia hacked the election, proponents have been forced to venture far and wide to find something, anything,
they can remotely pin on Russia. A few hundred thousand dollars spent on social media ads, including ads for Clinton and Sanders,
many of which were seen by literally no one, and half of which didn't run until AFTER the election? Are you freaking kidding me?
As for 'shady Russian money', maybe Trump has taken some. It certainly wouldn't surprise me that he's done something like launder
money for Russian oligarchs. Now prove to me took money from the Russian government. Because, again, those are two very different
prospects. And if you think the Kremlin and Russian oligarchs are interchangeable or in lockstep with each other, you clearly
don't know much about recent Russian history.
The Russiagate claim wasn't that Trump is skeevy and corrupt. Of course he is. The claim is that he is corrupt in very specific
ways, ways that constitute treason.
Vivian O'Blivion , May 21, 2018 at 6:30 am
Marasmus.
Difficult to argue with any of your points.
Mueller has filed charges against some of the staff in the St Petersburg operation, if you can connect Trump to this entity
then cooperation becomes criminal collusion. As charges have already been filed it matters not whether the St Petersburg staff
are private or state employees.
The fact that America has laws prohibiting foreign interference in its elections is I guess understandable, but hypocritical
and exceptionalist in the extreme given the cart blanch attitude America takes to interfering in the internal affairs of other
nations.
The Donald Jr meeting with Russians is just a rats nest of conflicting stupidities. If as many others state (and I don't disagree)
everyone tries to get dirt on the opposition and foreign sources of information are regularly tapped, then the secret is not to
get caught. The Democrats have a plausible cut out (or two) in place between the Russian sources for the Steele dossier and themselves.
As Steve Bannon has stated, meeting directly with the Russians was weapons grade stupid, but hey it's Don Jr. and Jared Kushner
we're talking about.
The really odd part is that the Russians would attend given that they must have known that their names would be logged by the
Secret Service detail providing security for the Republican candidate. To me, this does not suggest an attempt to help Trump as
"their man", but rather to dirty by association a candidate that could become President. This interpretation would concur with
analysis of the activities of the St Petersburg operation, which was to sow chaos into American social and political discourse.
andy--s , May 23, 2018 at 12:13 am
Heres the problem with that. FUsion GPS arranged the meeting at trump tower. The Russians paid them to connect with the trump campaign in order to
discuss the magnitsky act. They did not come to the meeting with any notion of DIRT. Trump Jr was told they had DIRT.
THe problem the FBI has, is that they never investigated the Russian contacts to the extent that they investigated the Americans
being contacted. Dig? :) IF Misfud told papaD that he had access to Hillary's emails, why did they not bother looking for
him for 9 months and then let him walk free? Because he was a set up.
PapaD got nailed for not being able to remember if the meeting was the tuesday prior or after joing the trump Campaign. It
doesnt make sense unless the FBI was looking to spy
Let's all assume for one second that all the fantasies of Russia gate are true. That every Russian that Trump and his associates/family
ever had any contact with are directed by Putin himself. Who believes for one second that this collusion has had more of a negative
impact 2016 election then the collusion that occured between Clinton and the DNC to subvert Sanders, Clinton and the media to
1st subvert Sanders and then Trump (side note, why doesn't Clinton/MSM collusion against Trump balance with the Trump/Russian
collusion for Trump?) How about the collusion between Wall Street and the DNC to such an extent that Citi Group was exposed as
having picked Obama's cabinet. And then let's remember that the Trump collusion with Kremlin has alot of guilt by association
through 6 degrees of separation and the Clinton/DNC/MSM/Wall Street collusion was proven in black and white through the publication
of Clinton/DNC/Podesta emails in Wikileaks.
That this point gets ignored by the MSM, is proof to me that they have lost all objectivity.
andy--s , May 23, 2018 at 12:16 am
MOre so.. Homer If Clintons personal server was a nothing burger not worthy of a single indictment, then why was it a national
security issue when some stranger offered the emails to Papadopoulos? They didnt bother investigating the stranger. they investigated
Papadopoulos!
Nobody will touch that with a ten foot poll in the main stream media.
strngr
You cite quite a number of examples, presumably without detailed knowledge of few, if any. I
will not fall into the same trap.
The Brexit vote was an outbreak of mass hysteria amongst English and Welsh working class
voters. The sentiment that powered the grass roots "rebellion" against the perceived wisdom
of the ruling elite was understandable frustration at social and economic neglect. My guess
is that in this regard it was a mirror of the rise of Trumpism. Interestingly Scotland voted
to remain in the EU by a substantially stronger margin than England voted to leave, because
there was already established a vivid, informed, grass roots political discourse mainly based
on Scottish social media. The Brexit outcome was influenced by some pretty underhand digital
media manipulation, but those doing the manipulation were domestic and hard right wing, not
Russian. The Guardian cannot be considered a source of untainted information, it is
increasingly Atlantasist and Zionist.
The Scottish independence vote in 2014 was heavily influenced by digital media but it was
entirely indigenous and grass roots. There was no credible claim of Russian interference then
or since. The Daily Express is a far right rag owned at the time of the article you cite by a
pornographer, and deeply unpleasant Zionist.
Over to a more general discussion.
Is there on any level a Russian state programme using a digital platform to influence
politics and social cohesion in other states? Frankly I would be astonished if there
wasn't.
The UK has had the British Council working out of its embassies since the beginning of
time.
The American State Department has been creating and financing Atlantasist think tanks and
associations for decades to skew British politics to meet American ends.
I doubt there is a country on the planet that has not felt the malign influence of the
State Department or CIA.
In the circumstances, Russia would be entirely justified in operating troll factories and
similar vehicles.
Next, what would the objectives of a Russian cyber operation be in the run up to the
American Presidential election? All academic evaluation of content believed to originate in
Russia and to be presented as domestic American input, suggests that the goal of the
intervention was to sew discord and chaos in society. That is to say that the Kremlin did not
have a favoured candidate.
How effective would the efforts of the St Petersburg troll factory be in exasperating
social divisions? My guess is that it would have been analogous with taking a hair dryer
outside in a category 5 hurricane.
Let us consider the Trump Tower meeting with the Russian delegation. As Steve Bannon
stated, meeting with the Russians at a venue under Secret Service control was monumentally
stupid. Monumentally stupid is entirely believable of Donald Jr., Jared Kushner and possibly
Manafort, but the Russians can't have been that dumb. By meeting at a venue where their names
would be openly logged by the State, they would be sabotaging any serious attempt to "get
their man into the White House", if that was their true goal. Taking this into account, the
object of the meeting from a Russian perspective can only have been to generate chaos.
Seventeen months on in the new administration and if I were them I would be awarding myself
an A+.
Try this though experiment and subdue your moral indignation at Russian interference for a
minute. In the circumstances is Russia entitled to do that which it you accuse it of? I will
not offer an answer to the question I pose, I am genuinely asking that you try and project to
see an alternative perspective.
The 2016 Trump Tower meeting set up to reveal dirt on Hillary Clinton "infuriated" Jared
Kushner, was a "waste of time" and had nothing to do with Clinton, according to transcripts of
interviews with the meeting's participants. The US Senate Judiciary Committee has released more
than 1,800 pages of transcripts, which provide new insight into the controversial meeting
during which Donald Trump Jr, along with Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and then campaign
chairman Paul Manafort, was expecting to receive "dirt" on Hillary Clinton from
Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.
Overall, the newly-released documents seem to indicate that a short 20-minute meeting
resulted in hours of interviews and thousands of pages of documents for little reason.
In the transcripts, Trump Jr. said that he was skeptical that Rob Goldstone, the publicist
who had been the first to contact him about a meeting, had colleagues who possessed
incriminating information about Clinton, but said felt he should at least "hear them
out." Read more 'Wasting taxpayers'
money': Lawyer Veselnitskaya talks Trump's dossier & Fusion GPS
He also said that it was important to note that when he accepted the invitation to go to the
meeting there was "no focus on Russian activities" surrounding the campaign and
claimed that Goldstone had not even confirmed the names of the attendees who would join them at
the meeting.
Goldstone had set up the meeting on behalf of Russian musical artist Emin Agaralov, the son
of a wealthy Russian businessman, but revealed in his interview that he later told Agaralov
that the meeting was "the most embarrassing thing you've ever asked me to do" given
that it ended up having nothing to do with Clinton. Goldstone also revealed that
Veselnitskaya's apparently Clinton-free presentation in the meeting had "infuriated"
Kushner.
In another indication that the meeting was not supposed to be a top-secret attempt for the
Trump campaign to collude with Russia, Goldstone also revealed that he "checked in" to
Trump Tower on Facebook when he arrived.
In a supplemental interview, Goldstone also told investigators that Russian President
Vladimir Putin was not able to meet Trump during the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, but
invited him through a phone call with his spokesman Dmitry Peskov, organized by Agaralov, to
attend the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi instead. According to Goldstone, Peskov said Putin
would be happy to meet him there -- but that meeting did not end up happening.
Anatoli Samochornov, a Russian translator who attended the meeting, said that no one present
had said the Russian government either supported Trump or opposed Clinton for president. He
also said there were no offers from the Russian side to release hacked emails, hack voting
totals or anything else.
The other translator present, Ike Kaveladze, said he spoke to Agaralov about two hours after
the meeting and told him it was a "complete loss of time" and a "useless"
meeting.
The committee released the thousands of pages of transcripts along with hundreds of
additional pages of related material, including the interviews with Goldstone, Russian-American
lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin and translators Samochornov and Kaveladze.
The meeting has been the subject of controversy, particularly the question of whether
then-candidate Trump knew about it. Special Counsel Robert Mueller has looked closely at the
meeting as part of his investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election, which
has not yet turned up any evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia.
Following the publication of the documents, Trump Jr. said they showed that he "answered
every question asked" by the committee.
"I appreciate the opportunity to have assisted the Judiciary Committee in its
inquiry," he said in a statement. "The public can now see that for over five hours I
answered every question asked and was candid and forthright with the Committee."
Note how NYT try to hide the fact that the meeting was most probably yet another a false flag operation (along with Steele
dossier) to implicate
Russia staged with the help of a person connected to British intelligence service, Mr. Goldstone,
a British music promoter. That in an interesting fact in additional to CIA mode within Trump campaign.
Notable quotes:
"... The intermediary, Rob Goldstone, told the committee that he proposed a second meeting between the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, and members of Mr. Trump's team in November 2016. He said he contacted Mr. Trump's longtime executive assistant at the behest of Aras Agalarov, a Russia-based billionaire who knows Mr. Putin. ..."
Most of the participants in the meeting have already publicly described their version of
events. Nonetheless, the records reveal some new details about the players involved and what
happened after the meeting was reported
by The New York Times last summer.
Among them: Six months after the Trump
Tower meeting , an intermediary contacted Donald J. Trump's office asking for a follow-up,
the newly released documents showed.
The intermediary, Rob Goldstone, told the committee that he proposed a second meeting
between the lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, and members of Mr. Trump's team in November 2016. He
said he contacted Mr. Trump's longtime executive assistant at the behest of Aras Agalarov, a
Russia-based billionaire who knows Mr. Putin.
The second session never took place. But the invitation shows the determination of Russians
with close Kremlin connections to convince the Trump team that the Magnitsky Act, which imposed
sanctions on a host of Russian officials for human rights abuses, was a mistake. The 2012 law,
which froze the bank accounts of some Russian officials and barred them from entering the
United States, infuriated Mr. Putin.
In a late November 2016 email to Mr. Trump's assistant, Mr. Goldstone, a British music
promoter, attached a three-page document marked "confidential" that called for "the launch of a
congressional investigation into the circumstances of passing the Magnitsky Act." He wrote that
Mr. Agalarov hoped the document would be delivered to "the appropriate team." Ms. Veselnitskaya
also attacked the
law in the June meeting.
The transcripts also highlight how lawyers for the Trump Organization tried to manage
the fallout by coordinating the statements of Mr. Goldstone and others.
In testimony, Donald Trump Jr. acknowledged that his father may have helped draft the
statement that he put out to the press after the meeting became public, but he said that they
had not discussed the meeting when it happened.
Investigators stopped the Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg at a New York-area airport
after he stepped off a private plane, according to the Times. They proceeded to search his
electronic devices and question him.
There is no indication that Vekselberg is suspected of wrongdoing. But the search and
interview suggests that Mueller's team is homing in on the Trump campaign and inauguration
committee's potential ties with Russians.
in
Analysis
,
Latest
Russiagate-Trump Gets Solved by Giant of
American Investigative Journalism
Some people's greed, apparently, knows
no limits -- not even when it could produce a world-ending nuclear war.
Breitbart is a Zionist mouthpiece. Steve Bannon is a mouth.
Robert and Rebekah Mercer (not Jewish) decided to shift their
allegiance and money from Cruz to Trump. They met with Jared
and Ivanka to discuss. The Mercers threw Bannon into the
deal. Once Bannon had infiltrated the campaign, and later the
WH, maybe the Zionists were still pulling his strings. Bannon
was also colluding with Chinese nationals, so Mueller does have
the leverage to twist Bannon to his will.
As is now becoming the way as the Russiagate scandal unravels, confirmation of the collapse of one of its
central pillars – the claim of proof of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign which some have
claimed to see in the meeting in Trump Tower in June 2016 between the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya
and Donald Trump Junior – has slipped out in the most covert way possible.
Nonetheless the confirmation is there and originates in what all the indications suggest is a deliberate
leak either from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team or from the White House's legal team.
The confirmation is provided in an NBC News
article
which reads as follows
Two sources familiar with the questions Mueller's team have been asking about the meeting say the
investigators are most interested in why the president crafted a misleading statement about the meeting
much later, in July 2017, after a New York Times report about it. The sources say Mueller's office is
trying to confirm every detail it can about the meeting.
Mueller's team is less interested in the meeting as a direct example of collusion, the sources said,
although Trump Jr. accepted the meeting after being told he would receive incriminating information about
Hillary Clinton as part of the Russian government effort to help his father.
No evidence has emerged publicly to contradict Veselnitskaya's account that she wanted to press a case
about U.S. Magnitsky Act sanctions, and that she did not possess significant derogatory information about
Clinton, despite the email from a music promoter to Trump Jr. promising incriminating details about the
Democrat.
Moreover, no evidence has emerged publicly that connects the Russians in the meeting with the Russian
intelligence effort to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
The issue of Donald Trump's supposedly misleading statement about the meeting is a red herring since it
can have no possible connection to the collusion allegations which Mueller's inquiry is supposed to be
investigating.
Even assuming that Trump's statement was misleading – which some might question – it would hardly be the
first case of a US President making a misleading statement, and it is impossible to see how it can possibly
give rise to a law enforcement issue for Mueller to investigate.
Of much more importance is the confirmation that Mueller's team now acknowledge that there is no evidence
to connect Veselnitskaya to Russian intelligence and that her and Donald Trump Junior's accounts of their
meeting must be accepted as true since there is no evidence to contradict them.
In truth this was obvious from the start as I pointed out in an
article
I wrote on 12th July 2017, written immediately after details of the meeting came to light
The meeting with Veselnitskaya duly took place on 9th June 2016. It turned out that she had no
information about Hillary Clinton to offer and was not a "Russian government attorney". Instead she
wanted to discuss the Magnitsky Act, upon which a baffled Donald Trump Junior politely showed her the
door.
That is the unanimous account of all the participants of the meeting including Donald Trump Junior and
Veselnitskaya herself. All agree that the meeting lasted no more than 20 minutes.
There is no evidence that contradicts their account and the absence of any follow-up to the meeting
essentially corroborates their account.
It seems that Donald Trump Junior and Veselnitskaya have never met since and have had no further
contact with each other.
There is
no
evidence here of any crime or wrongdoing being committed or –
contrary to what many are saying – of any intention to commit one.
Russiagate would not however be Russiagate if this important news that Mueller and his team have come to
the same conclusion was not smuggled out in an NBC News article whose title gives the impression that it is
about the totally meaningless fact that Veselnitskaya after leaving the meeting with Donald Trump Junior had
a brief encounter in the lift of Trump Tower with a blonde woman who might – or might not – have been Donald
Trump's daughter Ivanka.
To such ridiculous lengths to conceal embarrassing truths about Russiagate is the media in the US
increasingly reduced to.
Though the Veselnitskaya-Trump Junior meeting is now being finally acknowledged to be the red herring it
always was, there is one further point about it to make.
In my 12th July 2017 article I speculated that the meeting might have been a sting intended to
corroborate the collusion allegations between the Trump campaign and Russia which were to achieve written
form in the first 20th June 2016 entry of the Trump Dossier, written a few weeks after the
Veselnitskaya-Trump Junior took place.
What led others subsequently to speculate along the same lines was that there appeared to be a connection
between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the political consultancy firm which commissioned the Trump Dossier on
behalf of the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
It turns out that Veselnitskaya was not working for Fusion GPS but rather Fusion GPS was working for her,
in connection with her work on the Magnitsky case.
That in itself makes it inherently unlikely that she was acting as a catspaw for Fusion GPS when she met
Donald Trump Junior.
More to the point, Glenn Simpson's comments about Veselnitskaya are anything but complimentary. He
basically describes her – rather convincingly – as a self-important busybody and a minor league player, and
expresses incredulity at the suggestion that she was a Russian intelligence agent who was working for the
Kremlin.
Simpson's characterisation of Veselnitskaya in testimony in which he strongly promotes the Russiagate
collusion allegations and vouches for the truth of the Trump Dossier makes it all but inconceivable
Veselnitskaya was involved in a sting to set Trump Junior up.
Despite taking place at a time when the Trump-Russia collusion allegations were about to take off,
Veselnitskaya's meeting with Trump Junior must instead be seen as one of those annoying coincidences which
lawyers, journalists, policemen and the public automatically distrust, but which happen in real life.
"... I do not think Mueller can get Trump on collusion with Russia ..specifically because there was no collusion with the Kremlin/official Government. Instead there were a lot of contacts with individual Russians seeking to get a deal on something to boost their own Russian creds with Putin or for their own private financial gain. ..."
"... Mueller's investigation has, according to this article, accidentally turned up something that should put Mueller in prison: https://www.sott.net/article/375184-Muellers-investigation-accidentally-exposes-FBI-cover-up-of-Saudi-role-in-9-11 ..."
I do not think Mueller can get Trump on collusion with Russia ..specifically because there
was no collusion with the Kremlin/official Government.
Instead there were a lot of contacts with individual Russians seeking to get a deal on
something to boost their own Russian creds with Putin or for their own private financial
gain. Also outreach by Kushner to Russian money men and bankers for his 1 billion in
debt.
Mueller has a better chance of getting Trump on obstruction of justice and maybe lying to
the FBI because Trump, in the coming trump- Mueller interview, doesn't know what Mueller may
already know from his interviews with others so if he spins and lies he's toast.
I don't care about Trump being impeached as much as I care about removing Kushner. Kushner
is dirtier than pig shit and using his position to trade influence for money for the Kushners
in every foreign contact he makes.
Trumps relationship with Kushner is beyond weird, really, really weird .something ties
them together and I would bet money that's its being party to money laundering thru their
real estate deals and loans. Trump cant be the genius he claims to be, and claims Jared is.
and they not know all the money flowing to them from Russian oligarchs and other known money
movers isn't dirty as hell.
If Trump was the stable genius he says he is, he would have seen to it that Kushner would
never have married his daughter. If he is even a little smart, he would give Kushner the boot
now, though it's probably too late to avoid the consequences of his appointment of
Kushner.
Dimwit that I am, my conclusion is that Trump isn't a genius after all.
As The Free Thought Project has reported, Trump is also complicit in covering for the
Saudis, as he went from calling for holding Saudi Arabia accountable for its involvement in
9/11, to ignoring the idea that the country could have had any involvement at all.
After months on the campaign trail, in which he pledged that if he was elected,
Americans would "find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center," Trump made Saudi
Arabia the first foreign nation he visited as president of the U.S.
Trump's visit with Saudi King Salman occurred on May 20 – just four days after
Judge Altonaga ruled that the FBI should face a Freedom of Information trial in an attempt
to pursue transparency surrounding the funding of the 9/11 attacks.
During the visit, Trump announced plans for a $110 BILLION weapons deal with Saudi
Arabia, which adds a new level of context that should be considered when looking at why
Altonaga then reversed her decision on June 29.
"... Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA's Brennan, to run domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself. ..."
"... To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced the wiretapping of Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ. ..."
"... GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA's headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping surveillance on Trump associates. ..."
"... Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump Jr., and Kushner. ..."
"... OK Ron Johnson (R-WI), the author was Steven Boyd, Assistant for Legislative Affairs / DOJ - Hold him in contempt of congress. ..."
Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA's Brennan, to run
domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself.
To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced
the wiretapping of Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ.
The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial of
two FISA Court warrant applications filed by the FBI to seek wiretaps of Trump
associates.
GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA's
headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping
surveillance on Trump associates.
The illegal wiretaps were initiated months before the controversial Trump dossier
compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele.
The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr.,
Manafort and Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump's associates appear
compromised.
Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump
Jr., and Kushner.
After the concocted meeting by the Deep State, the British spy agency could officially
justify wiretapping Trump associates as an intelligence front for NSA because the Russian
lawyer at the meeting Natalia Veselnitskaya was considered an international security risk
and prior to the June sit down was not even allowed entry into the United States or the UK,
federal sources said.
By using GCHQ, the NSA and its intelligence partners had carved out a loophole to
wiretap Trump without a warrant. While it is illegal for U.S. agencies to monitor phones
and emails of U.S. citizens inside the United States absent a warrant, it is not illegal
for British intelligence to do so. Even if the GCHQ was tapping Trump on U.S. soil at Fort
Meade.
The wiretaps, secured through illicit scheming, have been used by U.S. Special Counsel
Robert Mueller's probe of alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 election, even though the
evidence is considered "poisoned fruit."
OK Ron Johnson (R-WI), the author was Steven Boyd, Assistant for Legislative Affairs / DOJ
- Hold him in contempt of congress. Have him arrested. During questioning, press him to the
wall, get him to tell him who in the FBI told him 'they couldn't find them.' Then go arrest
that guy too. Rinse and repeat. Look what these bastards did to Mike Flynn. Go get 'em.
NOW!!!
One of the silver linings in this mess is the clear view that the FBI is ridiculously
compromised & has chucked its standard of non-political leanings right out the window.
Shutting it down may have once seemed a long shot, now maybe not so much. If you haven't
noticed, another Trump boomerang has happened to the Left with their favorite word starting
with the letter S. This time I'm thinking Storm is what's about to follow instead of hole or
house.
If the republican leadership hiccup here on the release of the memo then it's things as
usual and forget a full on war from them. I don't trust those bastards as far as I can throw
them. Trump then needs to fire Sessions and Mueller and go full on attack mode with a press
conference doing what he does and light the left's hair on fire like never before. This is
war and it needs kicked off in grand fashion. The left's ability to guilt shame has been
neutered and they know it and are scared to death.
The Genius has lost control. Washington is oozing and dripping its corrupt, manipulating,
narcissistic and deceiving bile. Just one thin mint is all it will take. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJZPzQESq_0
At one point, Peter Strzok made reference to a phone that "could not be traced". He
probably had a 2nd phone for a period. I'd be willing to bet it was a BlackBerry. While he
had (if he had) that 2nd phone, he could have used that more secure phone for his
communications with Lisa Page.
The IG may have all of Strzok's text messages with Lisa Page from his official phone, but
none from the 2nd phone.
The article says that it was Lisa Page who suggested using the 2nd phone. That message
from her was in March 2016.
"Also in March, Page seems to be concerned about whether the things they say about Mr.
Trump can be found out. "So look, you say we can text on that phone when we talk about
Hillary because it cant be traced," she wrote."
Haven't read through the entire thread here, but the end date of the interval for the
missing data is also the date that Mueller was appointed.
All of this shit is at the NSA Blufdale, Utah, facility. Why are the taxpayers spending
umpteen billion dollars collecting and storing this stuff if the government is going to
pretend it doesn't exist? You can bet this internet post, and anyone who replies to it, is
archived there. We are supposed to be afraid of being surveiled by assholes like Clapper and
Brennan. Guess what? We're not.
If Horowitz now claims he really didn't receive all the text messages he requested, then
he too is part of a massive cover-up and any report that is issued by the DOJ's Inspector
General's office can't be believed by definition.
It's possible Horowitz lied then to placate the Congressional inquiry. I believe that the
Deep State believes that they can get Trump impeached before the shit hits the fan with the
Sedition by the FBI. There is always Plan B for the Deep State but 50 years after they rid
the world of 2 Kennedys the general population isn't buying it.
If I understand how US communication systems work, every network has a splitter which
copies all transmissions to NSA, or related agencies, storage devices. I would be shocked if
they didn't collect everything from FBI or DOJ employees, and I mean everything, from FBI
devices or their private devices. If the files are sitting safe and secure on NSA storage
devices, only the NSA could really "lose" them. And this would also be true for every one of
Clinton's messages. Why don't we ever see Congress ask NSA for anything? Is that
verboten?
FBI and DOJ and the Weasel Liar Rosenstein are LIARS. They don't want the world and the
American people know what Liars, corrupt, in the tank for Hilray to know what they did are
still trying to due. Trump needs to clean house of the FBI and DOJ of all Clinton and Obama
people.
"... House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said that after lengthy closed-door testimony by two former top Trump aides, he found that one of the men appears to have a "credibility" problem. ..."
"... But, he said that Bannon's testimony was more eventful. Gowdy said that at one point, Bannon attempted to dodge questions by exercising a privilege that does not exist. "That was his slip-up," Gowdy said. "He got this notion that 'hey, I'm going to create a privilege that no one's ever heard of before that doesn't exist in the law." Gowdy said the only "dangerous" issue for President Donald Trump is if "credible evidence" is presented. ..."
"... He said Bannon's credibility has taken a hit, since he once said there was no chance the Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. did not meet Trump Sr. ..."
"... But, after he was fired, Bannon reportedly told author Michael Wolff that there was no chance the meeting hadn't occurred. ..."
"... "This is the same witness that said that members of the president's family committed acts of treason. So, he's got a credibility issue," Gowdy said. "If they're hinging the entire case on Steve Bannon's credibility, good luck to the prosecution." ..."
House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said that after lengthy closed-door
testimony by two former top Trump aides, he found that one of the men appears to have a
"credibility" problem.
Former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski and former White House adviser Steve Bannon spent
several hours testifying before Gowdy's committee Tuesday.
Gowdy said Lewandowski wanted to answer every question posed to him, but that his lawyers
advised him against answering those regarding his work after he left the campaign. "That [onus is] on the lawyer, not the witness. Corey is going to come back and answer every
question anyone has," Gowdy said.
But, he said that Bannon's testimony was more eventful. Gowdy said that at one point, Bannon attempted to dodge questions by exercising a privilege
that does not exist. "That was his slip-up," Gowdy said. "He got this notion that 'hey, I'm going to create a
privilege that no one's ever heard of before that doesn't exist in the law." Gowdy said the only "dangerous" issue for President Donald Trump is if "credible evidence"
is presented.
He said Bannon's credibility has taken a hit, since he once said there was no chance the
Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. did not meet Trump Sr.
But, after he was fired, Bannon reportedly told author Michael Wolff that there was no
chance the meeting hadn't occurred.
"This is the same witness that said that members of the president's family committed
acts of treason. So, he's got a credibility issue," Gowdy said. "If they're hinging the entire
case on Steve Bannon's credibility, good luck to the prosecution."
"... Unable to come to terms with losing the 2016 election, Democrats are still pushing the 'Russiagate' probe and blocking the release of a memo describing surveillance abuses by the FBI, former Congressman Ron Paul told RT. ..."
"... I don't think anybody is seeking justice or seeking truth as much as they're seeking to get political advantage ..."
"... "I would be surprised if they haven't spied on him. They spy on everybody else. And they have spied on other members of the executive branch and other presidents." ..."
"... "The other day when they voted to get FISA even more power to spy on American people, the president couldn't be influenced by the fact that they used it against him. And I believe they did, and he believes that." ..."
"... "I've always maintained that government ought to be open and the people ought to have their privacy. But right now the people have no privacy and all our government does is work on secrecy and then it becomes competitive between the two parties, who get stuck with the worst deal by arguing, who's guilty of some crime," the politician explained. ..."
"... Paul also blasted the infamous 'Russian Dossier' compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, and which the Democrats used in their attack on Trump, saying it ..."
"... "has no legitimacy being revealing [in terms of] of Trump being associated with Russia. From the people I know The story has been all made up, essentially." ..."
"... "I'm no fan of Trump. I'm not a supporter of his, but I think that has been carried way overboard. I think the Democrats can't stand the fact that they've lost the election, and they can't stand the fact that Trump is a little bit more independent minded than they like," he said. ..."
Unable to come to terms with losing the 2016 election, Democrats are still pushing the
'Russiagate' probe and blocking the release of a memo describing surveillance abuses by the
FBI, former Congressman Ron Paul told RT.
A top-secret intelligence memo, believed to reveal political bias at the highest levels of
the FBI and the DOJ towards President Trump, may well be as significant as the Republicans say,
Ron Paul told RT. But, he added, "there's still to many unknowns, especially, from my view
point."
"Trump connection to the Russians, I think, has been way overblown, and I'd like to just
get to the bottom of this the new information that's coming out, maybe this will reveal
things and help us out," he said.
"Right now it's just a political fight," the former US Congressman said. "I think they're
dealing with things a lot less important than the issue they ought to be talking about Right
now, I don't think anybody is seeking justice or seeking truth as much as they're seeking to
get political advantage."
Trump's claims that he was wiretapped by US intelligence agencies on the orders of the Obama
administration may well turn out to be true, Paul said.
"I would be surprised if they haven't spied on him. They spy on everybody else. And they
have spied on other members of the executive branch and other presidents."
However, he criticized Trump for doing nothing to prevent the Senate from voting in the
expansion of warrantless surveillance of US citizens under the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) earlier this week.
"The other day when they voted to get FISA even more power to spy on American people, the
president couldn't be influenced by the fact that they used it against him. And I believe
they did, and he believes that."
"I've always maintained that government ought to be open and the people ought to have
their privacy. But right now the people have no privacy and all our government does is work
on secrecy and then it becomes competitive between the two parties, who get stuck with the
worst deal by arguing, who's guilty of some crime," the politician explained.
The fact that Democrats on the relevant committees have all voted against releasing the memo
"might mean that Trump is probably right; there's probably a lot of stuff there that would
exonerate him from any accusation they've been making," he said.
Paul also blasted the infamous 'Russian Dossier' compiled by former British spy Christopher
Steele, and which the Democrats used in their attack on Trump, saying it
"has no legitimacy being revealing [in terms of] of Trump being associated with Russia.
From the people I know The story has been all made up, essentially."
"I'm no fan of Trump. I'm not a supporter of his, but I think that has been carried way
overboard. I think the Democrats can't stand the fact that they've lost the election, and
they can't stand the fact that Trump is a little bit more independent minded than they like,"
he said.
Donald Trump Jr. called for the release of a memo that allegedly contains information about
Obama administration surveillance abuses and suggested that Democrats are complicit with the
media in misleading the public.
"It's the double standard that the people are fed by the Democrats in complicity with the
media, that's why neither have any trust from the American people anymore," Trump said on Fox
News Friday.
Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon once told Ivanka Trump: "You're just
another staffer who doesn't know what you're doing," according to a new book.
Related: Ivanka Trump's "special place in hell" for child predators comment trolls Roy Moore
rally
Bannon, who has long critiqued and clashed with Ivanka's and her husband Jared Kushner's
roles in the White House, tried to put the president's daughter in her place in one instance
detailed in the book.
"My daughter loves me as a dad...You love your dad. I get that. But you're just another
staffer who doesn't know what you're doing," Bannon said, The Washington Post reported when it
published excerpts on Monday.
The revelation is part of the latest book about life inside the White House. Howard Kurtz, host
of the Fox News show Media Buzz, wrote the book Media Madness: Donald Trump, The Press, And The
War Over The Truth, set to be released on January 29.
The new book, though perhaps not as sensational as the explosive tell-all Fire and Fury:
Inside the Trump White House, contains several new alleged revelations about the
administration. Along with reports of the turbulent relationship between Ivanka Trump and
Bannon, are claims that the president himself leaked information to journalists, that his aides
referred to his behavior as "defiance disorder" and that his staff was "blindsided" when he
accused former President Barack Obama of wiretapping his phones.
A more interesting question is how those testimonies might affect Bannon -- he is in a very hot water now. If he thought that the
meeting was so incriminating why he did not contact FBI and just decided to feed juicy gossip to Wolff?
Also he was not present at the meeting and was not a member of Trump team until two months later. From who he got all this information
? Was is just a slander by disgruntled employee?
Notable quotes:
"... To reiterate, those comments were not aimed at Don Jr. ..."
"... Bannon has denied that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government during the election ..."
"... Wolff also quotes the former White House strategist as saying, "This is all about money laundering. [Robert] Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr., and Jared Kushner . . . It's as plain as a hair on your face." ..."
"... Bannon then zeroed in on Kushner specifically, adding that "[i]t goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They're going to go right through that. They're going to roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me." ..."
"The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a foreign government inside Trump Tower in the
conference room on the 25th floor -- with no lawyers. They didn't have any lawyers," Bannon is quoted as saying in Fire and Fury.
"Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen to think it's all of that, you should
have called the F.B.I. immediately." Bannon reportedly speculated that the chance the eldest Trump son did not involve his father
in the meeting "is zero."
When Bannon's comments became public, Trump excoriated his former strategist, whom
he accused of having "lost his mind."
But while Bannon has since apologized for the remarks and sought to walk back a number of the quotes, he's stopped short of denying
that he viewed the Trump Tower meeting as treasonous. Instead, he's merely shifted the blame away from Trump Jr. and onto Manafort.
"My comments were aimed at Paul Manafort, a seasoned campaign professional with experience and knowledge of how the Russians operate.
He should have known they are duplicitous, cunning, and not our friends. To reiterate, those comments were not aimed at Don Jr.
," Bannon said in
a statement to Axios. ( Bannon has denied that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government during the election
.)
... ... ...
Though the Trump Tower meeting took place before Bannon joined the Trump campaign, Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the House
panel, told
CNN last week that he plans to question Bannon about "why this meeting at Trump Tower represented his treason and certainly unpatriotic
at a minimum."
Jared Kushner's "greasy shit"
Wolff also quotes the former White House strategist as saying, "This is all about money laundering. [Robert] Mueller chose
[senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul
Manafort, Don Jr., and Jared Kushner . . . It's as plain as a hair on your face." (Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort have all
denied wrongdoing.) Bannon then zeroed in on Kushner specifically, adding that "[i]t goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner
shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They're going to go right through that. They're going to roll those two guys up and say play me
or trade me."
He and Trump's son-in-law have never seen eye to eye; their White House feuds were a poorly kept secret, and following his ouster,
Bannon has given numerous interviews knocking Kushner, including one to my colleague Gabriel Sherman in which he
questioned Kushner's
maturity level. If Bannon has dirt on Kushner, he will likely get his chance to reveal it; Schiff also
declared
his intent to question Bannon on "the basis of his concern over money laundering."
They would be definitely able to hook him for lying to FBI. That's really easy with Bannon.
Notable quotes:
"... He is expected to cooperate with the special counsel, the sources said. ..."
"... Bannon's attorney told the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday that Bannon would answer questions when he goes to the special counsel because executive privilege would not apply, according to one of the sources. ..."
"... Last week, the FBI attempted to serve Bannon with a subpoena to appear before the grand jury in the Russia probe. He referred agents to his attorney ..."
Steve Bannon has struck a deal with special counsel Robert Mueller's team and will be interviewed by prosecutors instead of testifying
before the grand jury, two people familiar with the process told CNN. He is expected to cooperate with the special counsel, the sources
said.
The sources did not say when the interview will take place or if the subpoena would be withdrawn.
Bannon, the former White House chief strategist for President Donald Trump, is expected to talk openly to Mueller's team.
Bannon's
attorney told the House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday that Bannon would answer questions when he goes to the special counsel
because executive privilege would not apply, according to one of the sources.
A spokesman for the special counsel's office declined to comment.
Last week, the FBI attempted to serve Bannon with a subpoena to appear before the grand jury in the Russia probe. He referred
agents to his attorney, multiple sources said.
Emails
released Tuesday by Trump Jr. reveal that his friend Rob Goldstone pitched the meeting
based on the promise of damning information on Hillary Clinton that supposedly was being
offered by senior Russian government officials. On Monday, Mark
Corallo , a spokesman for President Trump's outside counsel, alleged that the meeting had
been set up under false pretenses and implied that Veselnitskaya's association with Fusion GPS
was relevant to the alleged deception.
"... "Bannon is gone, but he's now become fodder for the book by Michael Wolff which is now being mined by both Mueller and the House Intelligence Committee. We don't know what Bannon told the intelligence committee, since it was behind closed doors. But the New York Times, who broke the story, speculate that the subpoena is a way to get Bannon to agree to an interview rather than stand before the grand jury." ..."
"... Lauria also discussed Wolff's "Fire and Fury," which paints a highly negative image of the first year of the Trump White House -- including a quote from Bannon describing Donald Trump, Jr. and former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort as "treasonous." ..."
"... The conversation then turned to the specifics of Bannon's claim of treason, the meeting between Manafort, Trump, Jr. and several Russian lobbyists in Trump Tower, and its connection with the famous "dodgy dossier" compiled by Christopher Steele. ..."
"... "The difference is that intelligence reports are vetted by the intelligence agent and then by his superiors and usually by other agencies in his country's intelligence community. It's also a taxpayer-funded operation, supposedly to protect society, although that's not always what intelligence agencies do. Opposition research is a completely different thing: getting dirt on a political opponent, which is what Steele did," Lauria explained. ..."
"... "The idea that Trump, Jr. had gotten this opposition research from the Russian government, as apparently Bannon said, is completely incorrect because there was no one from the Russian government, there was a former KGB agent. The lawyer was not a member of the government and no dirt was ever turned over. [There's] only been one campaign that received opposition research from foreigners during the 2016 campaign: the Clinton campaign that paid for it via a British former intelligence agent and his supposed Russian sources. But foreign opposition research [has] never been established as a crime." ..."
Former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon has been subpoenaed to testify before a
grand jury, supposedly on alleged ties between the presidential campaign of Donald Trump and
Russian actors. Brian Becker on Radio Sputnik's Loud & Clear was joined by Joe Lauria,
a veteran journalist who has also worked for major newspapers in four countries, perhaps most
notably as the Wall Street Journal's correspondent to the United Nations.
"Mr. Bannon has fallen and I think he was the ideological force behind Trump,
particularly in relations with Russia," said Lauria. "It's interesting to know why did Trump
call for detente, and still seems to be pursuing detente, with Russia. Many people who believe
in Russiagate believe it's because he's somehow beholden to them or has been blackmailed or
whatever. But professor Jeffrey Summers with the University of Wisconsin wrote an interesting
piece where he said Bannon was the one who had impressed upon Trump that he should improve
relations with Russia so they can team up against Islamic extremism."
"Bannon is gone, but he's now become fodder for the book by Michael Wolff which is now being
mined by both Mueller and the House Intelligence Committee. We don't know what Bannon told the
intelligence committee, since it was behind closed doors. But the New York Times, who broke the
story, speculate that the subpoena is a way to get Bannon to agree to an interview rather than
stand before the grand jury."
Lauria also discussed Wolff's "Fire and Fury," which paints a highly negative image of the
first year of the Trump White House -- including a quote from Bannon describing Donald Trump,
Jr. and former Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort as "treasonous."
"If you read the key quote in that book, the House Intelligence Committee wants to question
him about an allegation against Paul Manafort and Donald Trump, Jr. for treason. I find this
very curious. If Bannon wanted Trump to have better relations with Russia, it's curious that he
would roll out an accusation of treason. He's far from the only one to bring the charge against
Trump in this entire Russiagate fiasco, but if you look at treason, it's the only crime defined
in the US Constitution. It says clearly treason against the US consists only of assisting an
enemy of the US in a state of open hostility with us."
"Russia is not in open hostilities with the United States, no one would argue that. The idea
that Trump, Jr. has committed treason is ridiculous. I don't know why Bannon used [the term].
Clearly he was angry at Trump for being fired, I don't know if he was begging for his job back
as Trump tweeted," Lauria said.
The conversation then turned to the specifics of Bannon's claim of treason, the meeting
between Manafort, Trump, Jr. and several Russian lobbyists in Trump Tower, and its connection
with the famous "dodgy dossier" compiled by Christopher Steele.
"If I could talk a second about that Don Jr meeting, there's a core issue in it over the
difference in opposition research and intelligence," Lauria said. "While Christopher Steele was
an MI-6 intelligence agent for Britain, he was working for a private company at the time. He
was hired by the Clinton campaign and the [Democratic National Committee] through Fusion GPS.
Glenn Simpson, of Fusion, who hired Steele directly, wrote in a New York Times editorial that
Steele produced intelligence memos. He was either lying or misleading the readers -- he has to
know the difference between them."
"The difference is that intelligence reports are vetted by the intelligence agent and then
by his superiors and usually by other agencies in his country's intelligence community. It's
also a taxpayer-funded operation, supposedly to protect society, although that's not always
what intelligence agencies do. Opposition research is a completely different thing: getting
dirt on a political opponent, which is what Steele did," Lauria explained.
"The idea that Trump, Jr. had gotten this opposition research from the Russian government,
as apparently Bannon said, is completely incorrect because there was no one from the Russian
government, there was a former KGB agent. The lawyer was not a member of the government and no
dirt was ever turned over. [There's] only been one campaign that received opposition research
from foreigners during the 2016 campaign: the Clinton campaign that paid for it via a British
former intelligence agent and his supposed Russian sources. But foreign opposition research
[has] never been established as a crime."
Russia's foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said it was "wild" that Trump's son was being
blamed for speaking with a Russian attorney. Lavrov – who met Trump last week at the G20
summit in Hamburg, together with Vladimir Putin – said he knew nothing of the meeting
with the lawyer. Serious people were trying to "make a mountain out of a molehill", Lavrov
said.
In the emails, Goldstone said he made contact with Trump Jr at the behest of the
Russian-Azeri businessman Aras Agalarov and Aglaravov's pop-star son, Emin. The Agalarovs
hosted Trump when he visited Moscow in 2013 for the Miss Universe beauty pageant.
On Wednesday, Aras Agalarov claimed the story was invented. "I think this is some sort of
fiction. I don't know who is making it up," he told Russia's Business FM radio station, adding:
"What has Hillary Clinton got to do with anything? I don't know."
It would be interesting if they get Wolff to testify too ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Fox News is reporting that Steve Bannon was told by the White House not to answer questions before House Intel Committee about the White House or the transition. Bannon testified before the committee on Tuesday. ..."
"... the NYT reports that Trump's former chief strategist was subpoenaed last week by the special counsel, Robert Mueller to testify before a grand jury as part of the investigation into possible links between Trump's associates and Russia. ..."
"... After excerpts from the book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," were published this month, Mr. Trump derided Mr. Bannon publicly and threatened to sue him for defamation. Mr. Bannon was soon ousted as the executive chairman of the hard-right website Breitbart News. ..."
"... The experts also said it could be a signal to Mr. Bannon, who has tried to publicly patch up his falling-out with the president, that despite Mr. Trump's legal threats, Mr. Bannon must be completely forthcoming with investigators. ..."
"... Prosecutors generally prefer to interview witnesses before a grand jury when they believe they have information that the witnesses do not know or when they think they might catch the witnesses in a lie. It is much easier for a witness to stop the questioning or sidestep questions in an interview than during grand jury testimony, which is transcribed, and witnesses are required to answer every question. ..."
"... Whether or not Bannon actually knows something that can help the Mueller probe, of course, remains to be seen. ..."
"... Good! Every time Mueller has tried to tighten the noose in the past more info on his own corruption has come out. Can't wait to find out more about what a fuck-up stoolie for the Clinton eradicate america campaign he's been. ..."
"... Yes, but how long before he finds anything. A blind squirrel could find something with this much time and resources. This really is a witch hunt. ..."
"... So fucking tired of this Democrat led witch hunt. This must be how ordinary people felt in Salem back in 1692-1693. We look like fucking fools and a fucking joke to the rest of the world. ..."
"... Grand Inquisitor Mueller, drowning in a sea of DEMOCRAT Russian collusion, subpoenas...Bannon...lol. ..."
"... How much has this idiot Mueller pissed away in taxpayer money? ..."
"... First, did he even say some of that stuff to the author of the book, as has been well publicized that the author is a known liar, fabricator, creating fiction for the sake of book sales. This stinks of the collusion story from the NY Times, which was BS, that got this whole colossal crock of simmering cow crap started. ..."
"... In his emails to Trump Jr., Goldstone referred to Veselnitskaya as a "Russian government lawyer" who had damaging info on Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." ..."
"... If the above were a pedophile sting operation, Jr. would be considered beyond any doubt a child predator, even though he didn't actually get the opportunity to act upon the intent of the meeting. ..."
Update:Fox News is reporting that Steve Bannon was told by the White House not to answer questions before House Intel
Committee about the White House or the transition. Bannon testified before the committee on Tuesday.
The bad news for Steve Bannon just keeps on coming.
Not long after Bannon was bounced from Breitbart following his feud with Trump
over his comments in Michael Wolff's book, moments ago the
NYT reports
that
Trump's former chief strategist was subpoenaed last week by the special counsel, Robert Mueller
to testify before a grand
jury as part of the investigation into possible links between Trump's associates and Russia.
And the reason why stocks dipped modestly and the VIX bounced on the news, is that the subpoena marks the first time Mueller is
known to have used a grand jury subpoena to seek information from a member of Mr. Trump's inner circle.
After excerpts from the book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," were published this month, Mr. Trump derided Mr.
Bannon publicly and threatened to sue him for defamation. Mr. Bannon was soon ousted as the executive chairman of the hard-right
website Breitbart News.
Mueller reportedly issued the subpoena after Mr. Bannon was quoted in a new book criticizing Mr. Trump, saying that Donald
Trump Jr.'s 2016 meeting with Russians was "treasonous" and predicting that the special counsel investigation would ultimately center
on money laundering.
According to the NYT, the subpoena could be a negotiating tactic:
Mr. Mueller is likely to allow Mr. Bannon to forgo the grand jury appearance if he agrees to instead be questioned
by investigators in the less formal setting of the special counsel's offices in Washington, according to the person, who would
not be named discussing the case.
But it was not clear why Mr. Mueller treated Mr. Bannon differently than the dozen
administration officials who were interviewed in the final months of last year and were never served with a subpoena.
Meanwhile, on Tuesday Bannon was testifying behind closed doors before the House Intelligence Committee, which is also investigating
Russia's meddling in the 2016 election and ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
The NYT quotes legal experts who said
the subpoena could be a sign that the investigation was intensifying, while others
said it may simply have been a negotiating tactic to persuade Mr. Bannon to cooperate with the investigation.
The experts
also said it could be a signal to Mr. Bannon, who has tried to publicly patch up his falling-out with the president, that despite
Mr. Trump's legal threats, Mr. Bannon must be completely forthcoming with investigators.
Prosecutors generally prefer to interview witnesses before a grand jury when they believe they have information that the witnesses
do not know or when they think they might catch the witnesses in a lie. It is much easier for a witness to stop the questioning
or sidestep questions in an interview than during grand jury testimony, which is transcribed, and witnesses are required to answer
every question.
The news will hardly come as a surprise to Trump: "the president appeared to ease his anger toward Mr. Bannon at the end of last
week. When asked in an interview with The Wall Street Journal whether his break with Mr. Bannon was "permanent," the president replied,
"I don't know what the word 'permanent' means.""
As a result, "people close to Mr. Bannon took the president's comments as a signal that Mr. Trump was aware that his fired
strategist would soon be contacted by investigators."
Whether or not Bannon actually knows something that can help the Mueller probe, of course, remains to be seen.
Good! Every time Mueller has tried to tighten the noose in the past more info on his own
corruption has come out. Can't wait to find out more about what a fuck-up stoolie for the
Clinton eradicate america campaign he's been.
Yes, but how long before he finds anything. A blind squirrel could find something with
this much time and resources. This really is a witch hunt. Meanwhile mountains of evidence
being ignored on Comey, Clinton, Lynch
How does a probe "intensify"? Does it mean they discuss things in louder voices?
Wear more colorful clothing? Increase the office lighting brightness?
What I wish would "intensify" is the brainpower of journalists.
Oh . . . and "Hillary" has two l's. Like "hell" has two l's.
They think Bannon is at odds with Trump and will roll over on him.
Must.Get.Moar.Popcorn.
This episode is about to start...
Mike Masr • Jan 16, 2018 1:49 PM Permalink
So fucking tired of this Democrat led witch hunt. This must be how ordinary people felt in Salem back in 1692-1693. We
look like fucking fools and a fucking joke to the rest of the world.
How much has this idiot Mueller pissed away in taxpayer money? Washington
Gov is a total waste.....beyond repair I would say. From that Idiot Black
Chick who wears the Cowboy hats like a Clown from the Circus, to the 84
fucking year old senile Bitch Feinstein......to waste of time and money.
This Country is lost.
First, did he even say some of that stuff to the author of the book, as has been well
publicized that the author is a known liar, fabricator, creating fiction for the sake of book
sales. This stinks of the collusion story from the NY Times, which was BS, that got this
whole colossal crock of simmering cow crap started.
Second, is Bannon that petty or does he
see the bigger picture?
In his
emails
to
Trump Jr., Goldstone referred to Veselnitskaya as a "Russian government lawyer" who had
damaging info on Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."
"If it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer," Trump Jr. replied to
Goldstone in one email.
Bannon doesn't have to say a word. Trump Jr. stated he loved the idea of Russian Government
support. Bannon is right. Jr.'s intent was treasonous-not to be confused with actually
committing treason.
If the above were a pedophile sting operation, Jr. would be considered beyond any doubt a
child predator, even though he didn't actually get the opportunity to act upon the intent of the
meeting.
Bannon backed candidate later lost. So much for this Bannon "success".
This idea of Trump playing 6 dimensional chess is a joke. It's the same explanation that was pushed for Obama disastrous neocon
foreign policy. Here is one very apt quote: "What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars
of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis, killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to
Afghanistan..." What 6-dimetional chess?
According to Occam razor principle the simplest explanation of Trump behaviour is probably the most correct. He does not control
foright policy, outsourcing it to "generals" and be does not pursue domestic policy of creating jobs as he promised his
electorate. In other words, both in foreign policy and domestic policy, he became a turncoat,
betraying his electorate, much like Obama. kind of Republican Obama.
And as time goes by, Trump looks more and more like Hillary II or Republican Obama. So he might have problems with the candidates he supports
in midterm elections. His isolationism, if it ever existed, is gone. Promise of jobs is gone. Detente with Russia is gone.
What's left?
Note the level disappointment of what used to be Trump base in this site comment section...
Notable quotes:
"... In a serious rebuke for President Trump (and perhaps moreso for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell), ousted judge and alt-right favorite Roy Moore has won the Alabama Republican Primary by a landslide ..."
"... The Steve Bannon-backed candidate, who defied court orders to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom and refused to recognize gay marriage after the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, is leading by 9.6 points with 92% of the votes counted... ..."
"... These attacks on Bannon were one of the most prominent news stories in the first week following Trump's election victory. It didn't take long, however, for a counter-attack to emerge - from the right-wing elements of the Jewish community. ..."
"... Bannon is a true fucking patriot trying to pull this once great country from the sinkhole. ..."
"... I think the reality is that this was a message to McConnell much more than Trump. That message is simple: I'm coming to kill your career. Bannon went out of his way to say he fully supports Trump (despite backing the opposite candidate). And, let's face it, if Bannon buries McConnell, he's doing everyone a service, Trump included. ..."
"... The echo chamber media "is so surprised" that in Germany and the US we are seeing a rising tide of pissed off people, well imagine fucking that? Leaving the echo chamber and not intellectually trying to understand the anger, but living the anger. ..."
"... Well, we can only hope that Trump gets the message. He was elected to be President of the USA, not Emperor of the World. Quote from that Monty Python film: "He's not the Messiah; he's a very naughty boy!" ..."
"... A cursory background reading on Roy Moore tells me that he is one of the worst types for public office. And he might just turn out to be like Trump -- act like an anti-swarm cowboy and promise a path to heaven, then show his real colors as an Establishment puppet once the braindead voters put him in office. ..."
"... When Trump won the Republican nomination, and then the Presidency it was because people were rebelling against the establishment rulers. There is considerable disgust with these big government rulers that are working for themselves and their corporate cronies, but not for the US population. ..."
"... Trump seems to have been compromised at this point, and his support of the establishment favourite, Luther Strange is evidence that he isn't really the outsider he claimed to be. Moore's victory in Alabama says the rebellion still has wheels, so there is some hope. ..."
"... In Missouri where I live, the anti-establishment Republican contender for the upcoming US Senatorial 2018 race is Austin Peterson. It will be interesting to see how he, and his counterparts in other states do in the primaries. Both of the current Missouri Senators are worthless. ..."
"... I remember well the last "3-Dimensional Chess master" Obama while he too was always out maneuvering his apponents, per the media reports... ..."
"... Every now and then Trump tends to make huge blunders, and sometimes betrayals without knowing what he is doing. "Champions"- (great leaders) do not do that. ..."
"... What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis, killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to Afghanistan... ..."
"... It is epitome of self-delusion to see people twisting themselves into pretzels, trying to justify/rationalize Trump's continuing display of disloyalty to America ..."
"... YOU CAN'T BE A ZIONIST AND AN AMERICAN FIRSTER, IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER. ..."
Congratulations to Roy Moore on his Republican Primary win in Alabama. Luther Strange started way back & ran a good race. Roy,
WIN in Dec!
In a serious rebuke for President Trump (and perhaps moreso for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell), ousted judge and
alt-right favorite Roy Moore has won the Alabama Republican Primary by a landslide
The Steve Bannon-backed candidate, who defied court orders to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom and refused to
recognize gay marriage after the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, is leading by 9.6 points with 92%
of the votes counted...
... ... ...
However, as Politco
reported this evening, President Donald Trump began distancing himself from a Luther Strange loss before ballots were even cast,
telling conservative activists Monday night the candidate he's backing in Alabama's GOP Senate primary was likely to lose ! and suggesting
he'd done everything he could do given the circumstances.
Trump told conservative activists who visited the White House for dinner on Monday night that he'd underestimated the political
power of Roy Moore, the firebrand populist and former judge who's supported by Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon, according
to three people who were there.
And Trump gave a less-than full-throated endorsement during Friday's rally.
While he called Strange "a real fighter and a real good guy," he also mused on stage about whether he made a "mistake" by backing
Strange and committed to campaign "like hell" for Moore if he won.
Trump was encouraged to pick Strange before the August primary by son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner as well as other aides,
White House officials said. He was never going to endorse Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks, who has at times opposed Trump's agenda,
and knew little about Moore, officials said.
... ... ...
Déjà view -> Sanity Bear •Sep 26, 2017 11:19 PM
AIPAC HAS ALL BASES COVERED...MIGA !
On Sept. 11, the Alabama Daughters for Zion organization circulated a statement on Israel by Moore, which started by saying
the U.S. and Israel "share not only a common Biblical heritage but also institutions of representative government and respect
for religious freedom." He traced Israel's origin to God's promise to Abram and the 1948 creation of modern Israel as "a fulfillment
of the Scriptures that foretold the regathering of the Jewish people to Israel."
Moore's statement includes five policy positions, including support for U.S. military assistance to Israel, protecting Israel
from "Iranian aggression," opposing boycotts of Israel, supporting Israel at the United Nations, and supporting direct Israeli-Palestinian
negotiations without outside pressure. He added, "as long as Hamas and the Palestinian Authority wrongly refuse to recognize Israel's
right to exist, such negotiations have scant chance of success."
While those views would give Moore common ground with much of the Jewish community regarding Israel, most of the state's Jewish
community has been at odds with Moore over church-state issues, such as his displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses, and
his outspoken stance against homosexuality, both of which led to him being ousted as chief justice.
moore misreads the Bible as most socalled christians do. they have been deceived, they have confused the Israel of God( those
who have been given belief in Christ) with israel of the flesh. They cant hear Christs own words, woe is unto them. they are living
in their own selfrighteousness, not good. they are going to have a big surprise for not following the Word of God instead following
the tradition of men.
They were warned over and over in the Bible but they cant hear.
I Claudius -> VinceFostersGhost •Sep 27, 2017 6:27 AM
Forgive? Maybe. Forget? NEVER!! He tried to sell "US" out on this one. We now need to focus on bringing "Moore" candidates
to the podium to run against the RINO's and take out McConnell and Ryan. It's time for Jared and Ivanka to go back to NYC so Jared
can shore up his family's failing empire. However, if his business acumen is as accurate as his political then it's no wonder
the family needed taxpayer funded visas to sell the property. Then on to ridding the White House of Gen Kelly and McMaster - two
holdover generals from the Obama administration - after Obama forced out the real ones.
Clashfan -> Mycroft Holmes IV •Sep 26, 2017 11:33 PM
Rump has hoodwinked his supoprt base and turned on them almost immediately. Some refuse to acknowledge this.
These attacks on Bannon were one of the most prominent news stories in the first week following Trump's election victory.
It didn't take long, however, for a counter-attack to emerge - from the right-wing elements of the Jewish community. The
Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) came to Bannon's defense and accused the ADL of a "character assassination" against Bannon.
The Wizard -> Oh regional Indian •Sep 26, 2017 10:12 PM
Trump should figure out the Deep State elites he has surrounded himself with, don't have control of the states Trump won. Trump
thought he had to negotiate with these guys and his ego got the best of him. Bannon was trying to convince him he should have
stayed the course and not give in.
~"American politics gets moore strange by the day..."~
Technically speaking OhRI, with Moore's win politics became less Strange, or "Strange less", or "Sans Luther", depending on
how one chose to phrase it [SMIRK]
Adullam -> Gaius Frakkin' Baltar •Sep 26, 2017 11:05 PM
Trump needs to fire Jared! Some news outlets are saying that it was his son in law who advised him to back Strange. He has
to quit listening to those who want to destroy him or ... they will.
overbet -> Killtruck •Sep 26, 2017 9:41 PM
Bannon is a true fucking patriot trying to pull this once great country from the sinkhole.
Juggernaut x2 -> overbet •Sep 26, 2017 10:07 PM
Trump better pull his head out of his ass and quit being a wishy-washy populist on BS like Iran- the farther right he goes
the greater his odds of reelection because he has pissed off a lot of the far-righters that put him in- getting rid of Kushner,
Cohn and his daughter and negotiating w/Assad and distancing us from Israhell would be a huge help.
The whole Russiagate ploy was a diversion from (((them)))
NoDebt -> Killtruck •Sep 26, 2017 9:42 PM
I think the reality is that this was a message to McConnell much more than Trump. That message is simple: I'm coming to
kill your career. Bannon went out of his way to say he fully supports Trump (despite backing the opposite candidate). And, let's
face it, if Bannon buries McConnell, he's doing everyone a service, Trump included.
Oldwood -> NoDebt •Sep 26, 2017 10:08 PM
I think it was a setup.
Bannon would not oppose Trump that directly unless there was a wink and a nod involved.
Trump is still walking a tightrope, trying to appease his base AND keep as many establishment republicans at his side (even
for only optics). By Trump supporting Strange while knowing he was an underdog AND completely apposed by Bannon/his base he was
able to LOOK like he was supporting the establishment, while NOT really. Trump seldom backs losers which makes me think it was
deliberate. Strange never made sense anyway.
But what do I know?
Urahara -> NoDebt •Sep 27, 2017 12:20 AM
Bannon is hardcore Isreal first. Why are you supporting the zionist? It's an obvious play.
general ambivalent -> Urahara •Sep 27, 2017 2:23 AM
People are desperate to rationalise their failure into a victory. They cannot give up on Hope so they have to use hyperbole
in everything and pretend this is all leading to something great in 2020 or 2024.
None of these fools learned a damn thing and they are desperate to make the same mistake again. The swamp is full, so full
that it has breached the banks and taken over all of society. Trump is a swamp monster, and you simply cannot reform the swamp
when both sides are monsters. In other words, the inside is not an option, so it has to be done the hard way. But people would
prefer to keep voting in the swamp.
Al Gophilia -> NoDebt •Sep 27, 2017 3:58 AM
Bannon as president would really have those swamp creatures squirming. There wouldn't be this Trump crap about surrounding
himself with likeminded friends, such as Goldman Sachs turnstile workers and his good pals in the MIC.
Don't tell me he didn't choose them because if he didn't, then they were placed. That means he doesn't have the clout he pretends
to have or control of the agenda that the people asked him to deliver. His backing of Stange is telling.
Bobbyrib -> LindseyNarratesWordress •Sep 27, 2017 5:38 AM
He will not fire Kushner or Ivanka who have become part of the swamp. I'm so sick of these 'Trump is a genius and planned this
all along.'
To me Trump is a Mr. Bean type character that has been very fortunate and just goes with the flow. He has nearly no diplomacy,
or strategic skills.
NoWayJose •Sep 26, 2017 10:35 PM
Dear President Trump - if you like your job, listen to these voters. Borders, Walls, limited immigrants (including all those
that Ryan and McConnell are sneaking through under your very nose), trade agreements to keep American jobs, and respect for our
flag, our country, and the unborn!
I had hope for Trump, but as someone who reads ZH often, and does not suffer from amnesia (like much of America), I knew he
was way too good to be true.
We all know his back tracking, his flip flops...and while the media and many paid bloggers like to spin it as "not his fault",
it actually is.
His sending DACA to Congress was the last straw. Obama enacted DACA with a stroke of his pen, but Trump "needed to send it
to Congress so they could "get it right". The only thing Congress does with immigration is try and get amnesty passed.
Of course while Trump sends DACA to Congress, he does not mind using the military without Congress, which he actually should
do.
Why is it when it's something American's want, it has to go through the "correct channels", but when its something the Zionists
want, he does it with the wave of his pen? We saw the same bull shit games with Obama...
Dilluminati •Sep 26, 2017 11:02 PM
Anybody surprised by this is pretending the civility at the workplace isn't masking anger at corporate America and Government.
I'll go in and put in the 8 hours, I'm an adult that is part of the job. However I'm actually fed up with allot of the stupid
shit and want the establishment to work, problem is that we are witnessing failed nations, failed schools, failed healthcare,
even failed employment contracts, conditions, and wages.
The echo chamber media "is so surprised" that in Germany and the US we are seeing a rising tide of pissed off people, well
imagine fucking that? Leaving the echo chamber and not intellectually trying to understand the anger, but living the anger.
You haven't seen anything yet in Catalonia/Spain etc, Brexit, or so..
This is what failure looks like: That moment the Romanovs and Louis XVI looked around the room seeking an understanding eye,
there was none.
Pascal1967 •Sep 26, 2017 11:19 PM
Dear Trump:
Quit listening to your moron son-in-law, swamp creature, Goldman Sachs douchebag son-in-law Kushner. HE SUCKS!! If you truly
had BALLS, you would FIRE his fucking ass. HE is The Swamp, He Is Nepotism! THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HATE HIM.
MAGA! LISTEN TO BANNON, DONALD.
DO NOT FUCK THIS UP!
ROY MOORE, 100%!!!!
You lost, Trump ... get your shit together before it is too late!
ElTerco •Sep 26, 2017 11:28 PM
Bannon was always the smarts behind the whole operation. Now we are just left with a complete idiot in office.
Also, unlike Trump, Bannon actually gives a shit about what happens to the American people rather than the American tax system.
At the end of the day, all Trump really cares about is himself.
samsara •Sep 26, 2017 11:25 PM
I think most people get it backwards about Trump and the Deplorables.
I believed in pulling troops a from all the war zones and Trump said he felt the same
I believed in Legal immigration, sending people back if here illegal especially if involved in crime, Trump said he felt the
same.
I believed in America first in negotiating treaties, Trump said he felt the same.
I didn't 'vote' for Trump per se, he was the proxy.
We didn't leave Him, He left us.
BarnacleBill •Sep 26, 2017 11:31 PM
Well, we can only hope that Trump gets the message. He was elected to be President of the USA, not Emperor of the World.
Quote from that Monty Python film: "He's not the Messiah; he's a very naughty boy!" It's high time he turned back to the
job he promised to do, and drain that swamp.
napper •Sep 26, 2017 11:47 PM
A cursory background reading on Roy Moore tells me that he is one of the worst types for public office. And he might just
turn out to be like Trump -- act like an anti-swarm cowboy and promise a path to heaven, then show his real colors as an Establishment
puppet once the braindead voters put him in office.
America is doomed from top (the swarm) to bottom (the brainless voters).
Sid Davis •Sep 27, 2017 1:40 AM
When Trump won the Republican nomination, and then the Presidency it was because people were rebelling against the establishment
rulers. There is considerable disgust with these big government rulers that are working for themselves and their corporate cronies,
but not for the US population.
Trump seems to have been compromised at this point, and his support of the establishment favourite, Luther Strange is evidence
that he isn't really the outsider he claimed to be. Moore's victory in Alabama says the rebellion still has wheels, so there is some hope.
In Missouri where I live, the anti-establishment Republican contender for the upcoming US Senatorial 2018 race is Austin Peterson.
It will be interesting to see how he, and his counterparts in other states do in the primaries. Both of the current Missouri Senators
are worthless.
nevertheless -> pfwed •Sep 27, 2017 7:33 AM
I remember well the last "3-Dimensional Chess master" Obama while he too was always out maneuvering his apponents, per the
media reports...
LoveTruth •Sep 27, 2017 2:56 AM
Every now and then Trump tends to make huge blunders, and sometimes betrayals without knowing what he is doing. "Champions"-
(great leaders) do not do that.
nevertheless -> LoveTruth •Sep 27, 2017 7:16 AM
What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis,
killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to Afghanistan...
But most treasonous of all was his sending DACA to "get it right", really? Congress has only one goal with immigration, amnesty,
and Chump knows dam well they will send him legislation that will clearly or covertly grant amnesty for millions and millions
of illegals, dressed up as "security".
Obama enacted DACA with the stroke of a pen, and while TRUMP promised to end it, he did NOT. Why is it when it's something
Americans want, it has to be "Constitutional", but when it comes form his banker pals, like starting a war, he can do that unilaterally.
It is epitome of self-delusion to see people twisting themselves into pretzels, trying to justify/rationalize Trump's continuing
display of disloyalty to America, and loyalty to Zionism.
Trump should always have been seen as a likely Zionist shill. He comes form Jew York City, owes everything he is to Zionist
Jewish bankers, is a self proclaimed Zionist...
YOU CAN'T BE A ZIONIST AND AN AMERICAN FIRSTER, IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER.
Either Zero Hedge is over run with Zionist hasbara, giving cover to their boy Chump, or Americans on the "right" have become
as gullible as those who supported Obama on the "left".
"... As for Bannon himself, his downfall has been fast and unceremonious: trashed by the president after he gossiped to Michael Wolff, abandoned by his deep-pocketed Mercer family funders, sacked by Breitbart, and then forced to watch as Trump indicated in a meeting earlier this week that he could sign a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Marat's downfall saw him elevated into a revolutionary martyr; Bannon has been banished into exile. ..."
"... But revolutions don't die with their figureheads. Bannonism won't either because, unlike the ethereal ideas behind liberalism and conservatism, it's found visceral real-world resonance -- among blue collars who see economic nationalism as a glimmer of hope among boarded-up plants, service-members frustrated with fruitless wars, young men flummoxed by modern feminism, right-wing activists frustrated with their political party's perceived impotence. Taunt Bannon all you like, but the imprint he leaves behind will be far larger than one spurious tell-all. ..."
"... The last blast of paleconservatism was Perot and the strong late 1990s economy halted that movement. ..."
"... The biggest thing lacking of the Bannon/Trump movement is how push back against the economic elite. Trump is governing exactly like an establishment Republican. Look at Trump/Perry ideas on saving coal which was properly turned down. This plan was unbelievably awful and not the right way for a better electric system and was simply handing Murray and First Energy a bunch money. ..."
"... Conservatism stands for stability and community. The accretions of "limited government" and "lower taxes", charming they may be as mantras, are more libertarian (Classic Liberal) than they are conservative ..."
"... A bomb-throwing Bolshevik like Bannon truly belongs on The Left, but in these days of abysmal ignorance of civics, it doesn't matter. "Bannonism" may live on, but thanks to the crackpot nature of its cobbled-together ideology, will remain a niche religion much like hard-core anarcho-libertarianism. ..."
"... Given the current atmosphere of outrage porn, willful ignorance and gleeful brutality, I do not have much hope for a Burkean conservatism to thrive, at least until after the pending social collapse ..."
"... Bannon will likely fade into oblivion via the Bourbon barrel, and the name Trump may become synonymous with "traitor" (but not like the media elite would hope). These men did not create a movement nor inspire anything. They were both savvy enough to see the political reality in this country and to give it voice. They will go, but the reality will remain. Ironically, but predictably, both men will likely be laid low by their own egos. But, so it goes ..."
"... The reality that supersedes these egotistical, narcissistic men is the fact that the traditional core of the American people have "woke" to the fact of their betrayal by the elite class to whom they have entrusted the leadership of this country for decades. They have awakened to find decay and rot throughout every American institution and to discover that these elites have enriched themselves beyond measure with the wealth of the nation at the cost of the workers and taxpayers who make that wealth possible. They have awakened to their own replacement and now realize the disdain with which they are viewed by those who would be their "masters." ..."
"... These Deplorables, white, working, taxpaying, Bible-believing, gun-owning MEN(!), are not going back into the opioid sleep of blissed out suburbia. They are now aware of the ill-hidden hatred which the elite class has for them and the future of serfdom to which these elites have fated them and their children. Gentlemen, a beast is being born out here in the hinterlands. It will not be put back in the cage ..."
Bannon is an imperfect ideologue. He has a gargantuan ego that often leads him astray, perhaps lately towards the delusion that
he himself would be a better populist messenger than the man he helped elect. But he's also hit on a paradox at the core of today's
American conservatism. Conservatives, in theory at least, look with skepticism upon grand projects and giant leaps, which too often
end up rupturing with the societal traditions they hold dear. Yet much of what conservatives support today is actually quite radical:
banning all or most abortions, rolling back the regulatory state, rejecting decades of orthodoxy on the issue of climate change,
a massive downshift of power from the federal government to states and localities, a moral ethic rooted in Christianity rather than
identity politics -- and lately questioning the "liberal international order" in favor of something more nationalist and protectionist.
The enactment of such an agenda would cause a good deal of upheaval and uncertainty, exactly the sort of void conservatives' forebears
feared most.
Some have wrangled with this contradiction by scaling back their proposals, claiming great problems can be addressed with light-touch
solutions, like child tax credits to arrest sagging birth rates. Others, much of Conservative Inc. it seems, are fine pretending
this tension doesn't exist at all. Bannon's approach has been to gleefully embrace conservatism's radical side. Disagree with him
all you like (and I do), but his is a perfectly logical position. His ascent -- some would say his transformation -- is a predictable
consequence of conservatives yearning for something increasingly distant from the modern world, just as did young people in the quietly
simmering 1950s. Indeed, there are many stylistic similarities between the radicals of today and those half a century ago: the "for
the lulz" performance art of a Milo Yiannopoulos contains an echo of the prankster Yippies, for example. Those who lack cultural
power can sell out, they can evolve, they can retreat to the catacombs -- or they can take Bannon's approach, they can transgress
and pump their fists and try to burn it all down.
Bannon's digestible binaries -- establishment versus the people, globalists versus Americans -- are easily superimposed on an
electorate that's itself divided both economically and culturally. Red states and the Rust Belt have for decades been the victims
of bad federal policy; Bannonism gives them an abstract enemy to blame, a valve for their fury. The algorithmic and library-voiced
Mitt Romney and the earnest Paul Ryan seem woefully inadequate by comparison: have those praying they run for higher office again
learned nothing? In The Constitution of Liberty , F.A. Hayek critiques conservatism by defining it as "a brake on the vehicle
of progress" and observing that a mere decrease in speed "cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving." Likewise,
while conventional taxes-and-terrorism Republican rhetoric doesn't feel like much of a heave on the ship's wheel, Bannonism furnishes
a clear vision, a real change, swords to wield, dragons to slay. Guess which one has greater appeal right now?
The modern right has always had a whiff of radicalism about it, with origins in pushback against the 60s counterculture, a second
wind in Newt Gingrich's legislative reformation, and late-life vitality in the Saul Alinsky-invoking tea party. But it's with Bannon
that the odor has become most pungent. He is an unlikely revolutionary. An
early profile from Bloomberg Businessweek
in 2015 portrays him as more of an operative than anything, determined to professionalize a conservative movement that had made too
many unforced errors. Other pre-Trump appearances found Bannon worrying about the national debt and extolling his Catholic faith.
It's a windy road from there to storming the barricades under Donald Trump's sigil, but it's one many conservatives have traveled
in recent years. The challenge for more traditional Republicans will be fashioning a new politics that quenches voters' burning thirst
for change -- a position they've arrived at themselves, not been brainwashed into by Fox News -- while circumventing Bannonism's
conflagrations and The Camp of the Saints ugliness.
As for Bannon himself, his downfall has been fast and unceremonious: trashed by the president after he gossiped to Michael Wolff,
abandoned by his deep-pocketed Mercer family funders, sacked by Breitbart, and then forced to watch as Trump
indicated in
a meeting earlier this week that he could sign a comprehensive immigration reform bill. Marat's downfall saw him elevated into
a revolutionary martyr; Bannon has been banished into exile.
But revolutions don't die with their figureheads. Bannonism won't either
because, unlike the ethereal ideas behind liberalism and conservatism, it's found visceral real-world resonance -- among blue collars
who see economic nationalism as a glimmer of hope among boarded-up plants, service-members frustrated with fruitless wars, young
men flummoxed by modern feminism, right-wing activists frustrated with their political party's perceived impotence. Taunt Bannon
all you like, but the imprint he leaves behind will be far larger than one spurious tell-all.
Matt Purple is the managing editor of The American Conservative
There is always a level of Bannonism /Paleoconservatism in the US politics but who knows how impactful it will be.
Probably the biggest issue for Bannon was Trump was elected in 2016 and our nation did not want or need a Leninist. (It
wasn't 2008 anymore) Frankly most conservatives were satisfied that HRC and Obama were not President and did not want massive changes.
The whole the people and globalist division is too simplistic and there are a lot 'People' that support free trade or relatively
open borders. (For instance I don't see the economic benefit of steel tariffs at all.)
The last blast of paleconservatism was Perot and the strong late 1990s economy halted that movement.
We still don't know how much a pushback on Trump/Bannonism will be. Trump is not popular and the House is endangered.
5) The biggest thing lacking of the Bannon/Trump movement is how push back against the economic elite. Trump is governing
exactly like an establishment Republican. Look at Trump/Perry ideas on saving coal which was properly turned down. This plan was
unbelievably awful and not the right way for a better electric system and was simply handing Murray and First Energy a bunch money.
It is a cardinal error to confuse conservatism with The Right, as much as it is to conflate liberalism with The Left.
Conservatism stands for stability and community. The accretions of "limited government" and "lower taxes", charming they
may be as mantras, are more libertarian (Classic Liberal) than they are conservative. (Thanks loads, Frank Meyer.)
A bomb-throwing Bolshevik like Bannon truly belongs on The Left, but in these days of abysmal ignorance of civics, it doesn't
matter. "Bannonism" may live on, but thanks to the crackpot nature of its cobbled-together ideology, will remain a niche religion much
like hard-core anarcho-libertarianism.
Given the current atmosphere of outrage porn, willful ignorance and gleeful brutality, I do not have much hope for a Burkean
conservatism to thrive, at least until after the pending social collapse.
Bannon will likely fade into oblivion via the Bourbon barrel, and the name Trump may become synonymous with "traitor" (but
not like the media elite would hope). These men did not create a movement nor inspire anything. They were both savvy enough to
see the political reality in this country and to give it voice. They will go, but the reality will remain. Ironically, but predictably,
both men will likely be laid low by their own egos. But, so it goes.
The reality that supersedes these egotistical, narcissistic men is the fact that the traditional core of the American people
have "woke" to the fact of their betrayal by the elite class to whom they have entrusted the leadership of this country for decades.
They have awakened to find decay and rot throughout every American institution and to discover that these elites have enriched
themselves beyond measure with the wealth of the nation at the cost of the workers and taxpayers who make that wealth possible.
They have awakened to their own replacement and now realize the disdain with which they are viewed by those who would be their
"masters."
These Deplorables, white, working, taxpaying, Bible-believing, gun-owning MEN(!), are not going back into the opioid sleep
of blissed out suburbia. They are now aware of the ill-hidden hatred which the elite class has for them and the future of serfdom
to which these elites have fated them and their children. Gentlemen, a beast is being born out here in the hinterlands. It will
not be put back in the cage.
The writer's allusion to the French Revolution is somewhat telling. The history of the West is replete with moments of savagery
and destruction directed inwardly. It will be so again. When these Deplorables turn on their keepers, it will not be pretty. The
Progressive elites who believe that they can control and shape "narratives" to harness that power are fools. The cloistered intellectuals
who believe that they can "opt" out of the coming clash are dreaming.
The traditional core of the American people are no different than their ancestors. They just don't live as close to the edge
as those folks did. But when they are backed up to that edge, when betrayal has been made clear and the institutions are revealed
for the Oz that they have become, they will recall that old hatred that still courses in the Western man's veins and will react
in ways that will chill the blood. The imaginary "crimes" with which "privileged whites" are damned by the rioting Cultural Marxists
will escape imagination and leap into reality. God help us.
Re: The last blast of paleconservatism was Perot and the strong late 1990s economy halted that movement.
Perot, for whom I voted in 1992 but not 1996, was not a paleoconservative, but rather a pragmatic centrist. Compare his position
on social issues with Pat Buchanan's (Buchanan being Mr. Paleoconservative -- and who ran in 1992 too)
Gorka was actually great in very difficult situation when this smug neoliberal shill Cooper try to bully his way in best tradition
of Bill Oreilly. But Cooper is so well trained in bullshit that it is impossible to 'convert" him on anything. He will try to
promote his fake new lines.
Notable quotes:
"... "Why don't you report on Hillary Clinton's collusion instead?" "Because there's no active FBI investigation into it. There's literally no evidence of anything like that taking place, unlike the Trump investigation, which DOES have an active FBI investigation looking into it." "....yeah, but... why don't you report it anyway? You're fake news." ..."
"Why don't you report on Hillary Clinton's collusion instead?" "Because there's no active FBI investigation into it. There's
literally no evidence of anything like that taking place, unlike the Trump investigation, which DOES have an active FBI investigation
looking into it." "....yeah, but... why don't you report it anyway? You're fake news."
"... It is amazing that the media is picking apart meetings. I have observed that what ever the deep state wants to hide they play a game of blame and twisting the facts. ..."
"... Anderson Cooper is such an arrogant self righteous elite from an elite family. Jay Sekulow is a great man an one of the greatest attorneys in American. He knows his stuff and could run circles around the entitled Cooper! ..."
"... Cooper is absolute garbage... complete and utter, absolute garbage. If he actually did a true journalistic story that wasn't just cia and deepstate bs talking points, i would have a heart attack. These "news" organizations are terrible ..."
"... CNN is fake news. Don't talk to CNN ..."
"... They conveniently over-look all the Hillary mess. Hmm, wonder why??? ..."
The Clintons and Trump were friends not too long ago. I think they're all elitists. New boss, same owners. Trump is crass but
I think he's doing a surprisingly good job. I am hoping things will continue to look up, economically...because, money changes
everything.
It is amazing that the media is picking apart meetings. I have observed that what ever the deep state wants to hide they play
a game of blame and twisting the facts. It is amazing what the Liberals are emphasizing especially with the terrible things that
occurred with Obama Administration, spending, loss of millions of dollars, and illegal activity.
Anderson Cooper is such an arrogant self righteous elite from an elite family. Jay Sekulow is a great man an one of the
greatest attorneys in American. He knows his stuff and could run circles around the entitled Cooper!
Cooper is absolute garbage... complete and utter, absolute garbage. If he actually did a true journalistic story that wasn't
just cia and deepstate bs talking points, i would have a heart attack. These "news" organizations are terrible
Cooper sounded more like one of the nut job conspiracy theorists, just like all the rest on CNN and MSNBC. They conveniently
over-look all the Hillary mess. Hmm, wonder why???
The problem with Bannon is that he never have a realistic economic program, despite his claims of being the "economic
nationalist". The only thing I heard is the idea of this huge investment into infrastructure which is possible because
interest rate are so low.
That's why establishment Republicans were able to neutralize Bannon even before his self-immolation by talking too much to
Wolff, who was only too happy to push him under the bus to earn quick bucks.
Notable quotes:
"... Bannon still thinks of himself as a revolutionary. That self-perception won't change. It's just that now he has no vehicle, no staff, no platform, and no major donors funding his ambitions." ..."
"... Is the alt-right leaderless and destined for irrelevance? Is it a "movement" at all? Has the establishment all but won the Republican civil war? ..."
"... "What made Breitbart a must-read was the idea that by reading it you're getting insight into the president. That's gone now and there's no one at Breitbart that will have proximity to the president in the way Bannon did. They are a platform without any obvious political relevance or proximity to the president." ..."
He had been excommunicated by the president, the White House, his billionaire patron and now
his own company. "The guy loves history," the website Axios noted. "Well, this political
suicide is historic. Bannon still thinks of himself as a revolutionary. That
self-perception won't change. It's just that now he has no vehicle, no staff, no platform, and
no major donors funding his ambitions."
A giant of the populist base that helped propel Trump to victory has been toppled, raising
questions about the movement he left behind. Is the alt-right leaderless and destined for
irrelevance? Is it a "movement" at all? Has the establishment all but won the Republican civil
war?
... ... ...
Miller, 32, has emerged as the keeper of the nationalist flame. He is a hardliner on
immigration and a key architect of the controversial travel ban. Like Trump and Bannon, he also
revels in verbal combat. Last Sunday he clashed with CNN host Jake Tapper
... ... ...
Then came Thursday's tirade about "shithole" countries, which provoked a worldwide outcry.
But many on the right turned a blind eye or even endorsed the comments, providing a glimpse of
the stark polarisation in America and some potential heirs to Bannon's crown. Fox News host
Tucker Carlson told viewers Trump's point was "something that almost every single person in
America actually agrees with". Ann Coulter tweeted: "He's trying to win me back."
As for the post-Bannon Breitbart, it made its allegiance clear. After all, Breitbart is
still run by Bannon protégés. Matt Boyle, its Washington editor, has long been
close to Bannon and is shaping its political coverage. Alex Marlow, a longtime stalwart of the
website, is still its top editor and former Nigel Farage aide Raheem Kassam is still its London
editor. One source close to Bannon said: "Nothing is changing in terms of the coverage and what
it does is allow him to focus on the actual issues."
Even so, the site faces a struggle to remain relevant. Kurt Bardella, a political
commentator and former Breitbart spokesman, said: "What made Breitbart a must-read was the
idea that by reading it you're getting insight into the president. That's gone now and there's
no one at Breitbart that will have proximity to the president in the way Bannon did. They are a
platform without any obvious political relevance or proximity to the president."
Battered by the backlash from Michael Wolff's book, Steve Bannon is trying to make amends
with the Trump family, providing a statement to Axios that expresses "regret" to President
Trump and praises his son, Donald Trump Jr.
"Donald Trump, Jr. is both a patriot and a good man. He has been relentless in his
advocacy for his father and the agenda that has helped turn our country around."
"My support is also unwavering for the president and his agenda -- as I have shown daily
in my national radio broadcasts, on the pages of Breitbart News and in speeches and
appearances from Tokyo and Hong Kong to Arizona and Alabama."
"President Trump was the only candidate that could have taken on and defeated the Clinton
apparatus. I am the only person to date to conduct a global effort to preach the message of
Trump and Trump_vs_deep_state; and remain ready to stand in the breach for this president's efforts to
make America great again."
"My comments about the meeting with Russian nationals came from my life experiences as a
Naval officer stationed aboard a destroyer whose main mission was to hunt Soviet submarines
to my time at the Pentagon during the Reagan years when our focus was the defeat of 'the evil
empire' and to making films about Reagan's war against the Soviets and Hillary Clinton's
involvement in selling uranium to them."
"My comments were aimed at Paul Manafort, a seasoned campaign professional with
experience and knowledge of how the Russians operate. He should have known they are
duplicitous, cunning and not our friends. To reiterate, those comments were not aimed at Don
Jr."
"Everything I have to say about the ridiculous nature of the Russian 'collusion'
investigation I said on my 60 Minutes interview. There was no collusion and the investigation
is a witch hunt."
"I regret that my delay in responding to the inaccurate reporting regarding Don Jr has
diverted attention from the president's historical accomplishments in the first year of his
presidency."
The backstory ... In Wolff's book, Bannon is quoted as saying of Mueller's prosecutors:
"They're going to crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV.'"
Be smart: While Bannon's statement may seem like a baby step, he's as stubborn as Trump when
it comes to apologizing and admitting he has made a mistake. He views any concession as a sign
of humiliating weakness.
What's next: Look for Don Jr. to accept the statement graciously. But Bannon has further to
go with President Trump: Axios has learned that POTUS has said that he wants surrogates who
appear for him on TV to "bury Steve."
Axios' Jonathan Swan
reported last night : Trump has been working the phones over the past several days,
telling allies they need to choose between him and Bannon.
P.S. "Fake book" ... Trump tweets as he leaves Camp David: "I've had to put up with the Fake
News from the first day I announced that I would be running for President. Now I have to put up
with a Fake Book, written by a totally discredited author."
"Ronald Reagan had the same problem and handled it well. So will I!"
Looks like Bannon is really weak in political economy. He does not even use the term neoliberalism. Go
here to read the full transcript of his speech.
One very interesting quote is ""I believe we've come partly off-track in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we're
starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the
West, a crisis of capitalism."
Notable quotes:
"... That war triggered a century of barbaric -- unparalleled in mankind's history -- virtually 180 to 200 million people were killed in the 20th century, and I believe that, you know, hundreds of years from now when they look back, we're children of that: We're children of that barbarity. This will be looked at almost as a new Dark Age. ..."
"... I believe we've come partly offtrack in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we're starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of capitalism. ..."
"... I see that every day. I'm a very practical, pragmatic capitalist. I was trained at Goldman Sachs, I went to Harvard Business School, I was as hard-nosed a capitalist as you get. I specialized in media, in investing in media companies, and it's a very, very tough environment. And you've had a fairly good track record. So I don't want this to kinda sound namby-pamby, "Let's all hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya' around capitalism." ..."
"... One is state-sponsored capitalism. And that's the capitalism you see in China and Russia. I believe it's what Holy Father [Pope Francis] has seen for most of his life in places like Argentina, where you have this kind of crony capitalism of people that are involved with these military powers-that-be in the government, and it forms a brutal form of capitalism that is really about creating wealth and creating value for a very small subset of people. And it doesn't spread the tremendous value creation throughout broader distribution patterns that were seen really in the 20th century. ..."
"... The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing, is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism. And, look, I'm a big believer in a lot of libertarianism. I have many many friends that's a very big part of the conservative movement -- whether it's the UKIP movement in England, it's many of the underpinnings of the populist movement in Europe, and particularly in the United States. However, that form of capitalism is quite different when you really look at it to what I call the "enlightened capitalism" of the Judeo-Christian West. It is a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people, and to use them almost -- as many of the precepts of Marx -- and that is a form of capitalism, particularly to a younger generation [that] they're really finding quite attractive. And if they don't see another alternative, it's going to be an alternative that they gravitate to under this kind of rubric of "personal freedom." ..."
Buzzfeed has the remarks of Stephen Bannon, former CEO of Breitbart News ,
and currently appointed by President Elect Trump to be his chief advisor, at a conference at
the Vatican in the summer of 2014:
Steve Bannon:
Thank you very much Benjamin, and I appreciate you guys including us in
this. We're speaking from Los Angeles today, right across the street from our headquarters in
Los Angeles. Um. I want to talk about wealth creation and what wealth creation really can
achieve and maybe take it in a slightly different direction, because I believe the world, and
particularly the Judeo-Christian west, is in a crisis. And it's really the organizing principle
of how we built Breitbart News to really be a platform to bring news and information to people
throughout the world. Principally in the west, but we're expanding internationally to let
people understand the depths of this crisis, and it is a crisis both of capitalism but really
of the underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian west in our beliefs.
It's ironic, I think, that we're talking today at exactly, tomorrow, 100 years ago, at
the exact moment we're talking, the assassination took place in Sarajevo of Archduke Franz
Ferdinand that led to the end of the Victorian era and the beginning of the bloodiest century
in mankind's history. Just to put it in perspective, with the assassination that took place 100
years ago tomorrow in Sarajevo, the world was at total peace. There was trade, there was
globalization, there was technological transfer, the High Church of England and the Catholic
Church and the Christian faith was predominant throughout Europe of practicing Christians.
Seven weeks later, I think there were 5 million men in uniform and within 30 days there were
over a million casualties.
That war triggered a century of barbaric -- unparalleled in mankind's history --
virtually 180 to 200 million people were killed in the 20th century, and I believe that, you
know, hundreds of years from now when they look back, we're children of that: We're children of
that barbarity. This will be looked at almost as a new Dark Age.
But the thing that got us out of it, the organizing principle that met this, was not
just the heroism of our people -- whether it was French resistance fighters, whether it was the
Polish resistance fighters, or it's the young men from Kansas City or the Midwest who stormed
the beaches of Normandy, commandos in England that fought with the Royal Air Force, that fought
this great war, really the Judeo-Christian West versus atheists, right? The underlying
principle is an enlightened form of capitalism, that capitalism really gave us the wherewithal.
It kind of organized and built the materials needed to support, whether it's the Soviet Union,
England, the United States, and eventually to take back continental Europe and to beat back a
barbaric empire in the Far East.
That capitalism really generated tremendous wealth. And that wealth was really
distributed among a middle class, a rising middle class, people who come from really
working-class environments and created what we really call a Pax Americana. It was many, many
years and decades of peace. And I believe we've come partly offtrack in the years since the
fall of the Soviet Union and we're starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly,
is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of
capitalism.
And we're at the very beginning stages of a very brutal and bloody conflict, of which if
the people in this room, the people in the church, do not bind together and really form what I
feel is an aspect of the church militant, to really be able to not just stand with our beliefs,
but to fight for our beliefs against this new barbarity that's starting, that will completely
eradicate everything that we've been bequeathed over the last 2,000, 2,500 years.
Now, what I mean by that specifically: I think that you're seeing three kinds of
converging tendencies: One is a form of capitalism that is taken away from the underlying
spiritual and moral foundations of Christianity and, really, Judeo-Christian belief.
I see that every day. I'm a very practical, pragmatic capitalist. I was trained at
Goldman Sachs, I went to Harvard Business School, I was as hard-nosed a capitalist as you get.
I specialized in media, in investing in media companies, and it's a very, very tough
environment. And you've had a fairly good track record. So I don't want this to kinda sound
namby-pamby, "Let's all hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya' around capitalism."
But there's a strand of capitalism today -- two strands of it, that are very
disturbing.
One is state-sponsored capitalism. And that's the capitalism you see in China and
Russia. I believe it's what Holy Father [Pope Francis] has seen for most of his life in places
like Argentina, where you have this kind of crony capitalism of people that are involved with
these military powers-that-be in the government, and it forms a brutal form of capitalism that
is really about creating wealth and creating value for a very small subset of people. And it
doesn't spread the tremendous value creation throughout broader distribution patterns that were
seen really in the 20th century.
The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing, is what I call the
Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism. And, look, I'm a big believer in
a lot of libertarianism. I have many many friends that's a very big part of the conservative
movement -- whether it's the UKIP movement in England, it's many of the underpinnings of the
populist movement in Europe, and particularly in the United States.
However, that form of capitalism is quite different when you really look at it to what I
call the "enlightened capitalism" of the Judeo-Christian West. It is a capitalism that really
looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people, and to use them almost -- as many of
the precepts of Marx -- and that is a form of capitalism, particularly to a younger generation
[that] they're really finding quite attractive. And if they don't see another alternative, it's
going to be an alternative that they gravitate to under this kind of rubric of "personal
freedom."
The other tendency is an immense secularization of the West. And I know we've talked
about secularization for a long time, but if you look at younger people, especially millennials
under 30, the overwhelming drive of popular culture is to absolutely secularize this rising
iteration.
"... "I'm not a white nationalist, I'm a nationalist. I'm an economic nationalist," Bannon told the news outlet earlier this week. "The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f -- ed over." ..."
"... "Look, are there some people that are white nationalists that are attracted to some of the philosophies of the alt-right? Maybe," Bannon told Mother Jones in August. "Are there some people that are anti-Semitic that are attracted? Maybe. Right? Maybe some people are attracted to the alt-right that are homophobes, right? But that's just like, there are certain elements of the progressive left and the hard left that attract certain elements." ..."
"... "It's everything related to jobs," Bannon said and seemingly bragged about how he was going to drive conservatives "crazy" with his "trillion-dollar infrastructure plan." ..."
"... "With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up," he proposed. "We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution -- conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement." ..."
"... Bannon, in the Reporter interview, also gave some insight into how he viewed his political foes (presumably, liberals and the media) -- and the "darkness" he touts in fighting against them. ..."
Steve Bannon, the chief strategist and right-hand man to President-elect Donald Trump,
denied in an interview that he was an advocate of white nationalism -- and gave hints instead
about how his brand of "economic" nationalism will shake up Washington.
In The Hollywood Reporter, Bannon, the controversial former head of Breitbart News who went
on to chair Mr. Trump's presidential campaign, discussed why he believed his candidate won the
election.
"I'm not a white nationalist, I'm a nationalist. I'm an economic nationalist," Bannon told
the news outlet earlier this week. "The globalists gutted the American working class and
created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f -- ed
over."
Bannon's appointment to the White House has drawn criticism from Democrats and several civil
liberties groups, in part because of his (and Breitbart's) strong association with
the alt-right , a political movement with strains of white supremacy.
In the past, the former Breitbart CEO has admitted the alt-right's connections to racist and
anti-Semitic agendas.
"Look, are there some people that are white nationalists that are attracted to some of the
philosophies of the alt-right? Maybe,"
Bannon told Mother Jones in August. "Are there some people that are anti-Semitic that are
attracted? Maybe. Right? Maybe some people are attracted to the alt-right that are homophobes,
right? But that's just like, there are certain elements of the progressive left and the hard
left that attract certain elements."
In the Reporter interview, Bannon challenged the notion that racialized overtones dominated
the Trump campaign on the trail. He predicted that if the administration delivered on its
election promises, "we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and
Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years."
"It's everything related to jobs," Bannon said and seemingly bragged about how he was going
to drive conservatives "crazy" with his "trillion-dollar infrastructure plan."
"With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild
everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up," he proposed. "We're just going to
throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater
than the Reagan revolution -- conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist
movement."
Bannon, in the Reporter interview, also gave some insight into how he viewed his political
foes (presumably, liberals and the media) -- and the "darkness" he touts in fighting against
them.
"Darkness is good," Bannon said. "Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That's power. It only
helps us when they...get it wrong. When they're blind to who we are and what we're doing."
Michael Wolff is a
lousy husband and, as we
learned today, a lousy
son-in-law, too . If you'd like to take a look at the lawsuit filed against Wolff and his
wife by 85-year-old Edith Anthoine -- she claims the pair tried to force her out of her
apartment -- we posted a copy of it below.
Earlier we listed one way Condé Nast
could save a few bucks as it
embarks on another round of budget cuts.
Here's one more: terminate Michael Wolff 's contract with Vanity
Fair . We're no lawyers or anything, but we have a feeling that sleeping with an intern constitutes just cause.
Quoting out of context is a favorite Wolff tool...
As Sam Nunberg put it Wolf book for Democratic Party is like Obama birth issue for Republican
Party after Obama victory. It is a rallying cry: let's win midterm.
Notable quotes:
"... Sam Nunberg, a former Trump campaign aide, confirms that he did call Trump a fool but says the full context of his quotations were not put into Michael Wolff's new book. ..."
Sam Nunberg, a former Trump campaign aide, confirms that he did call Trump a fool but says
the full context of his quotations were not put into Michael Wolff's new book.
Nunbergy says that the observation of possible mental unfitness on the part of the
president is a Democrat "tactic and a strategy which works." It may also be entirely
true.
if Trump didn't really want to win the election (as noted in Fire and Fury ) then why
would he collude with Putin to win the election? It doesn't make sense. I'm a Democrat and
strongly believe Donny is one can short of a six pack. Covfefe!
"... This is not a winning strategy. One of Trump's underappreciated strengths is his sly command of irony, on display again last week when he tweeted that his two great assets in life were "mental stability and being, like, really smart." Note the superfluous "like," which is stupid when spoken but intended as humor when written. The president isn't making a fool of himself. He's having a laugh that's part self-deprecation, part trolling, and actual wit. ..."
This is not a winning strategy. One of Trump's underappreciated strengths is his sly
command of irony, on display again last week when he tweeted that his two great assets in life
were "mental stability and being, like, really smart." Note the superfluous "like," which is
stupid when spoken but intended as humor when written. The president isn't making a fool of
himself. He's having a laugh that's part self-deprecation, part trolling, and actual
wit.
Misunderestimation has already been the political stock in trade of one two-term Republican
president. I believe that Trump is ignorant, incurious, vain, gauche, bigoted, intemperate,
bullying, suggestible, reckless and morally unfit for his office. But he's not deficient in
cunning, and that cunning deserves healthy respect from his political opponents. That Michael
Wolff fails to appreciate it only shows who's the biggest dope in "Fire and Fury."
"... Fire and Fury's shoddy journalism manages to indict both Wolff's tactics and the whole media ecosystem around him. ..."
"... Since Fire and Fury's thunderous debut last week, much ink has been spilled over Wolff's small errors, the unbelievability of several of the stories he relates, and his general character as a journalist. These critiques are all essentially correct: He has been known to make lazy mistakes; he tells stories that prompt eye-rolls because something about them just doesn't ring true. Yet Fire and Fury is a much worse book than any of these criticisms suggest. Wolff is not merely out of his depth -- he frequently seems confused by even basic matters of political ideology -- but he also rather starkly displays all the problems with writing palace-intrigue stories about dishonest and unscrupulous people. Another throughline of the book -- that the media has abysmally failed to cover Trump fairly or adequately -- is correct, but not in the way he thinks. The starkest sign of a rotten media ecosystem is that a book this flimsy and dubious could dominate the news cycle. ..."
"... The starkest sign of a rotten media ecosystem is that a book this flimsy and dubious could dominate the news cycle. ..."
"... The starkest sign of a rotten media ecosystem is that a book this flimsy and dubious could dominate the news cycle. ..."
"... Instead, at the precise moment that the press is under grotesque attack from people who care nothing about the truth and are doing their (admittedly incompetent) finest to discredit honest reporting, we get a book in which it is impossible to distinguish fact from fiction -- and pointless to even try. ..."
Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya has become a central figure in the Russia investigation
because of her involvement in the June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting.
And one of the stranger wrinkles in that saga is Veselnitskaya's interactions with Simpson
just hours before that controversial conclave.
Simpson's interview transcript confirms past reporting that he was with Veselnitskaya the
day of that meeting as well as the day before and day after.
Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya speaks during an interview in Moscow, Russia
November 8, 2016. REUTERS/Kommersant Photo/Yury Martyanov
But in her own testimony to the Judiciary committee, Veselnitskaya denied encountering
Simpson on those days.
"Did you have contact with Glenn Simpson on June 8, 9, or 10, 2016?" reads one of the 94
questions posed to Veselnitskaya by the Senate panel.
Undercutting that testimony, Simpson said that Veselnitskaya attended dinners
where he was also present on June 8 and June 10. They were also together in a Manhattan court
room on the morning of the Trump Tower meeting.
Simpson's work with Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin, a Russian-American lobbyist who also
visited Trump Tower, has stoked speculation that the Russians provided information that ended
up in the dossier.
But Simpson denied in his testimony that either Russian contact told him about the Trump
Tower meeting. He also said he doubted that either provided information to Steele.
IMHO they are viable: Wolff did numerous mistakes that can be exploited against him and his
publisher. Boasting about "taking the President down" in his interviews is one such blunder.
Bannon is another Wolff vulnerability. Should Bannon disclaim the quotes Wolff should iether
produce tapes or list losing his fortune. Actually Bannon is in better position to sue Wolff then
the President and that can be used.
But Wolff can be sued for behaviour outside NY libel statute. for example for illegal recoding as he boasted that he has
tapes. Whether they were obtained legally is a big, big question. His statements in emails and phone conversations such as
"I want to take Trump down" also might contain tidbit that can prove malice.
"There are no federal libel laws, so it will be difficult for Trump to 'open them up,' as he
called for during the campaign," said Alexandra Ellerbeck, the North America Program
Coordinator for Committee to Protect Journalists. "It seems like what he really objects to is
the Supreme Court decision New York Times v. Sullivan , which puts in place a standard
of 'actual malice' for libel suits brought by public officials."
In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled that news publications could not be sued for libel by
public figures unless there was grounds for false reporting. While Trump may have difficulty
proving this with the media outlets he regularly disparages over Twitter -- he
announced his intentions to list the most "corrupt" media organizations on the onset of
2018 -- he could have legal grounds with Wolff. Numerous actors have contested the claims made
in Fire and Fury , including White House aides and Washington Post reporter
Mark Berman .
"We want fairness," the president said. "Can't say things that are false, knowingly false,
and be able to smile as money pours into your bank account. We are going to take a very, very
strong look at that, and I think what the American people want to see is fairness."
A lawyer representing Trump sent Henry Holt and Co., Fire and Fury 's publisher, a
cease and desist letter to prevent the book's publication. Fire and Fury 's
publication date was moved up and is now a #1 New York Timesbest-seller
"... President Donald Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon will appear before the House Intelligence Committee to discuss Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. A source familiar with the probe told Reuters on Thursday that the interview is likely to focus on Bannon's time during the campaign, rather than his brief stint at the White House. ..."
"... Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House ..."
President Donald Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon will appear before the House
Intelligence Committee to discuss Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. A
source familiar with the probe
told Reuters on Thursday that the interview is likely to focus on Bannon's time during the
campaign, rather than his brief stint at the White House.
The Daily Beast reaffirmed
the report, confirming that Bannon had retained white collar attorney Bill Burck of the firm
Quinn Emanuel. Burck currently represents White House Counsel Don McGahn and former Chief of
Staff Reince Priebus for the Russia investigation.
Although Bannon has managed to avoid questioning by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team,
he has gone on-record criticizing the Trump team's handling of the Russia investigation.
After Bannon was ousted from the White House last August, the former aide called the
president's decision to fire former FBI Director James Comey the worst blunder "in modern
political history" during a 60 Minutes interview.
Bannon also called a Trump Tower meeting between Donald Trump, Jr. and Russians claiming to
have damaging information on former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton "treasonous" and
"unpatriotic." The remarks surfaced in reporter Michael Wolff's book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House , leading to Bannon's firing from
Breitbart and universal condemnation
from GOP leaders.
Breitbart Executive Chairman Steve Bannon's fall has accelerated into a plummet. A
conservative watchdog group helmed by Bannon worked to discredit President Donald Trump during
the onset of the 2016 presidential primary, according to opposition research obtained by
CNN.
Collected by the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) and author Peter Schweizer, the
document reportedly describes connections between Trump's companies and mafia figures,
allegations that have long circled the president's business enterprise. GAI was co-founded by
Schweizer and Bannon in 2012 and received heavy funding from the Mercer family -- one of
Trump's largest campaign contributors. Before backing Trump, the Mercer family publicly
supported Texas Senator Ted Cruz for the presidency.
"We research political figures from all political parties and our basic premise is follow
the money. That's what guides our research approach," Schweizer told CNN.
A source familiar with the organization confirmed to CNN that GAI collected research on all
Republican and Democratic candidates during the 2016 presidential election. Additional sources
confirmed that the document was shared with GOP donors during the primary, but made no
indication as to whether Trump was aware of its existence when he hired Bannon as his
campaign's CEO.
"... Last Thursday, resident media critic John Nolte penned a piece that included tweets from Don Jr blaming Bannon for the loss of the Alabama special Senate election. He called Bannon's tenure a "nightmare of backstabbing, harassing, leaking, lying and undermining the president". ..."
"... Jonah Goldberg at National Review, who opined that "no personality in modern political history has so completely squandered an opportunity to be an influential force in American life, particularly in so short a period of time" ..."
Most outlets haven't found the choice to be at all difficult. Not even Breitbart, the
website that until late on Tuesday, Bannon nominally controlled.
Over the last week, many of Breitbart's articles uncritically relayed the insults hurled at
Bannon by the president and his allies.
Last Thursday, resident media critic John Nolte penned a piece that included tweets from
Don Jr blaming Bannon for the loss of the Alabama special Senate election. He called Bannon's
tenure a "nightmare of backstabbing, harassing, leaking, lying and undermining the
president".
On Saturday, Charlie Spiering offered an unvarnished report on the president's remarks that
his boss was "sloppy" and was "dumped like a dog".
And just yesterday, Dylan Gwinn laid out an unsympathetic account of the way the White House
spurned Bannon's belated attempt to apologize.
But the brickbats for Bannon weren't just coming from his paid writers.
Last Wednesday on Infowars, Alex Jones's conspiracy swamp, Paul Joseph Watson gleefully
reported that Breitbart's readers were dumping on him in the comment threads of the site's own
articles.
On one of the main internet hubs of pro-Trump sentiment, the notorious "The Donald"
subreddit, Bannon's erstwhile status was also under threat. Among the general jeering were a
few expressions of ambivalence, or confusion: "Tough case. He does promote an America First
agenda, no doubt, but he is also fully responsible for bringing a SNAKE into the WH."
... ... ...
Some were lacerating, like Jonah Goldberg at National Review, who opined that "no
personality in modern political history has so completely squandered an opportunity to be an
influential force in American life, particularly in so short a period of time" . The Trump
skeptics at Redstate coined a new word, "Bannonfreude", to encapsulate its glee.
1: Promote Trump_vs_deep_state
2: Promote yourself as the brains and driving force behind Trump_vs_deep_state
3: Conspire behind the scenes to publicly undermine Trump_vs_deep_state and everything you are famous
for achieving
4: Make sure the book you secretly conspired to have written clearly names you as one of its
main sources
Bannon was an idiot. Talk about pissing in your own lounge room. He squandered the
opportunity of a life time. What a dumbass. The Wolff book is a joke. There is a lot more to
come out about the BS aspect of it. Yes the White House was dysfunctional at the beginning
but not to that extent. Wolff is another one who think he walks on water. Wait to see him
drown.
What Steve Bannon achieved with Breitbart is impressive and will have a huge impact on our
history, but he looks to have fallen victim to the same Washington hubris he spent years
railing against. Nobody is bigger than the movement, not even him.
Anarchic popularists, like Farage and Bannon, essentially seem to think that being verbally
clever, angry radicals reflects some profound knowledge only they have discovered and their
emotive displays reflect their gravitas and potency. Most onlookers, however, readily
recognise the desparation of their absurdity. Their blank statements always sound hollow and
the intensity of their massage only highlights complete vacuousness of their propositions
with little to indicate wider life experience to support their grasps for airtime. There is
almost no political support for their voices reflecting an wider public base. The crudity of
their manner wastes our time! We will wonder why the media gave them so much airtime. Its
like assuming global warming is an opinion, so let have the bonkers comments from Nigel
Lawson?
"... I'd say there is a similarity to the battle between Hitler and Rohm. Between the elite part of teh party that openly supports the capitalist elite (and that is exactly what trump does) and the plebian part that at least nominally thinks it supports those lower down (as long as they are the correct race, religion, etc). ..."
Now that's one lightweight Svengali. Not smart enough to outfox a journalist, too stupid to
believe in his own myths and not charismatic enough to convince the Mercers the dumb
technocrats who funded his pseudo christian nationalist politics to carry on paying for the
horseshit masquerading as an ideology.
"My experience with extremists on the right or left is that they will quickly turn on
former allies who dare to violate the standards of ideological purity"
George Orwell: `Homage to Catalonia`
Reds (Communists) turn on Blacks (Anarchists), fascists win.
I'd say there is a similarity to the battle between Hitler and Rohm. Between the elite
part of teh party that openly supports the capitalist elite (and that is exactly what trump
does) and the plebian part that at least nominally thinks it supports those lower down (as
long as they are the correct race, religion, etc).
It was far more than that. The SA wanted to replace the armed forces as a sort of people's
army. Crushing the leadership of the SA was one of the prices Hitler (willingly) paid for
support of the army, who also helped with the purge. Although the SA remained as an important
and powerful organisation after the night of the long knives it was never again a threat to
the more established parts of the German ruling elite.
On the other side of this the curtailing of the power of the SA was also used by the Nazi
regime to show foreign powers that really Nazism wasn't that radical or a threat to them
"... I don't think Wolff is a fraud. I seriously believe he was handsomely paid by someone who is part of the Bring Down Trump organization to serve as their front person in yet one more of their failed attempts. Wolff is not a fraud; rather, he is a prostitute. ..."
Wolff's new book about the Trump administration, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White
House," has been questioned by journalists for getting basic details and quotes wrong. McCain
took Wolff to task over the many errors in his reporting, leaving him absolutely speechless at
one point.
"You know, Michael, your credibility is being questioned. Trump said the book is full of
lies " McCain began before Wolff cut her off.
"Let's remember who my credibility is being questioned by," Wolff said
"Let me finish," McCain retorted. "The New York Times' Maggie Haberman, New York Times' John
Martin, David Brooks, CNN's Alisyn Camerota, Tony Blair, Tom Barrack, Kate Walsh, Anna Wintour,
all denying quotes."
McCain continued the long list of people who have denied Wolff's reporting, and Wolff sat
there awkwardly unsure of how to respond.
Wolff ultimately responded for one mistake he made–mixing up Mike and Mark
Berman–but dodged the rest and even suggested that The New York Times was just jealous
that he had "scooped" them.
Kathleen3 > jerry • 10 hours ago
I don't think Wolff is a fraud. I seriously believe he was handsomely paid by someone who
is part of the Bring Down Trump organization to serve as their front person in yet one more
of their failed attempts. Wolff is not a fraud; rather, he is a prostitute.
frank shea > Kathleen3 • 9 hours ago
and a 10 cent whore!
Kathleen3 > frank shea • 7 hours ago
Wolff will pay a high price for selling out to the highest bidder. After this fiasco I doubt
another publisher will ever come near him.
He's certainly putting his pocketbook before his reputation. I hope the
publisher losses millions on the book. He's admitted he's out to take Trump down,
and he's admitted the book is full of rumors, which makes him a traitor to the
country. His willingness to violate journalistic ethics and standards, makes him
a traitor to real journalists.
I hope he's unable to publish anything else in his life, and has to get a real
job like cashier or janitor (whom I respect a lot more than Wolfe).
Every prostitute is a fraud for a few minutes. The media makes the whole World
think, at least for a moment, that Wolff's book is true. Publishers love guys
like this, factual authors are too dull for them.
These witches complain day in and day out how President Trump is a liar and
then they trot this fool out who admits that some things in his book are not
factual as some credible writer....their stupidity is outdone only by their
hypocrisy.
What a smarmy, smug, self important D bag. This guy thinks he's head and
shoulders above everyone else. Sorry Wolff but that kind of attitude is only
acceptable on the NY cocktail circuit.
He fancies himself as the chosen one to take down POTUS Trump. The road is
littered with the bodies of like-minded people who now have no career or future
prospects for one, and plenty more are going to end up in the same boat. LOL
i have yet to see wolff questioned to the degree that mccain did with facts.
everyone else he talked to, like msnbc and cnn, were sponges and not very
critical of the book because they want to believe the smears. and factual errors?
if i were to read anyone's book with all the factual errors it contained i would
question the writer's ethics and honesty and dismiss the writer completely.
factual errors are inexcusable.
The MSM or drive by media as Rush calls em, have totally lost any sense of
moralism or sense of judgement (being fair). Their demention has led them to
believe their own lies and reject any normality. They have zero objectivness.
I have not read it and don't plan to read it. Is it considered fiction or
non-fiction? Isn't it interesting that as the Russia, Russia, Russia
investigation appears to be going nowhere, all of a sudden this book comes out,
the President's mental capacity is being questioned, plus a myriad of other
things happen. Some of these people are walking a very thin line that once
crossed could result in charges of treason. People need to get a grip.
He seemed flummoxed by her fabulous questioning and that Whoopi etc did NOT
interrupt her one single time I have to think that even the left realizes he has
done a lot of damage.
"A major new study out of Harvard University has revealed the true extent of
the mainstream media's bias against Donald Trump.
Academics at the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy analyzed
coverage from Trump's first 100 days in office across 10 major TV and print
outlets.
They found that the tone of some outlets was negative in as many as 98% of
reports, significantly more hostile than the first 100 days of the three previous
administrations"
He's so slimy..I mean seriously..No editor proof read the book to check to see
the quotes were actually made? He won't release the types he has..Does he think
he can make more bank off of them latter down the line? I want to see his scummy
butt in prison.
"Wolff's new book about the Trump administration, "Fire and Fury: Inside the
Trump White House," has been questioned by journalists for getting basic details
and quotes wrong".
I guess he now qualifies to work for CNN or MSNBC at a big fat salary because
he is so delusional.
On top of being a liar and a buffoon, there is something else that just jumps
out in this interview with Meghan McCain (MOTTO: Even a blind squirrel finds a
nut now and then.).
Just take a peek at Michael Wolff in this interview...he looks, sounds, and
acts like Dr. Evil, from the Austin Powers movie series..!!! Mike Meyers could
not have done the part better! Made me think of this clip:
Michael Wolff shows how low some people get on the humanity pole. He is a
fraud and liar, through and through and everyone knows it, including half the
people in his book who deny the statements he said they made. He is a liar and
fraud looking to make money from idiots who buy the book and there will be enough
of these low life's to buy it.
The book was probably financed by Soros & the dnc. President Trump is not
a globalist, so he will be attacked from all sides. Including within his
administration. They don't care how it is done, and they will resort to any
tactic. It doesn't matter if it is factual, or just B.S.
Michael Wolff is just the latest Resist Movement fail. He has produced a
"book" that is no more than a collection of plagiarized reports from CNN, MSNBC,
NYTimes and WAPO for the past year. He should be a case study of what you cannot
do in journalism at university J schools in a few years.
So the guy says he was a 'fly on the wall' in meetings. Can one imagine that
in a meeting anyone would make comments about their boss that he attributes. Who
knew who in that meeting would not report to others their comments to the boss?
Absolute nonsense Wolff.
Wolff knows that his Jedi mind tricks only work on the weak minded, and the
weak minded are his target audience. So far, it all seems to be going according
to plan.
The book probably sells like hotcakes in places like Berkeley, Seattle, San
Fran, Portland, etc etc.
The book may already be in the 75% off discount bin in the land of the
"Deplorables" who have no time for malicious pap and gossip.
So if I write a book and say I took a few journalistic liberties, might have
mixed up a detail or two and never really interviewed the people I quoted. Can I
still say it's Factual or would it be Fictional? I Guess the answer depends on
how many people hate the person you wrote about, just saying.
LOL! The daily caller cut him off at just the right moment LOL!
Wolff explained it on "the view".
Ailes died, and Bannon told him to put it in the book, so the off-the-record
conversation turned into something he could publish...
I'm surprised Wolff didn't call her a racist. That's usually the card this
liberals play when do not have a valid defensive argument. Since McCain is white
and maybe Wolff was actually smart enough not to call her a racist I surprised he
didn't call her a misandrist instead of just stammering.
"Money" itself is not evil - it's the "evil pursuit of money" that is evil.
You have a perfect example of this in Michael Wolff and his nefarious, faux book.
The publisher can't wait to print another million copies. This is what I would
consider "blood money" the most evil of all.
McCain reduced this weirdo to a babbling quivering obfuscating leftie. He
won't even release the tapes he claims to have. If he has them and he recorded
surreptiously, in DC and many states, he committed a felony. But it's doubtful he
has tapes. He's a bigger liar than Trump and almost a bigger liar than
Hillary.
If you wanted to cast the role of a sleazy ambulance-chaser, this guy's face
and manner would fit the bill. It amazes me that anyone would pay $$ to buy
anything this guy has to say. Same people who bought Hillary's book about all the
people who cost her the election.
Michael Wolff wrote a hit piece with second and third hand information -
without interviewing the key people or even talking to them and those he quoted
are mostly denying vehemently the quotes attributed to them.
A hit piece. A nasty piece of work - the book and the author.
A shame that a slime like Wolff will make money from his deceptions.
Pathetic.
Never trust an author of history that is unable to answer direct questions
about their work. DNC has been caught paying for several corrupt well composed
controversies within the past decade, at least eight per year. I have zero reason
to believe the garbage this guy is spewing from his rear.
I'm finding myself more and more impressed with Meghan McCain. All of a
sudden, she seems to have grown up. Happy for her on her marriage and sending
prayers for her dad.
Lol when you have to put a disclaimer at the part of the book that "some parts
aren't true", then you are showing you don't care as a "writer" and you are
showing you have alternative motive......This guy is a nobody looking for 15
minutes of fame and with the liberals and their ability to believe everything no
matter how stupid...he will get it.
In the last exchange in the video he adamantly states that he has no integrity
AT ALL. "It was off the record, but I printed my twisted view of what I heard
anyway". ANNNND after saying that he "removed himself" from the scope of the
bookit is all about him.
I often use the analogy of the guilty person with one hand in the cookie jar,
face covered in chocolate and crumbs, one foot on the body and holding the
smoking gun in the other hand denying it all. Wolff is like that. The entire left
is like that. Confronting them with the evidence and reality is a waste of
time.
"... His book 'Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House' might make Wolff the highest paid author of 2018. His net worth is currently at $500,000 but according to sales his worth might reach more than $12 million by the end of the year. ..."
"... The settlement was reached after a judge found there was evidence supporting Edith's claims that she'd swapped a four-bedroom on Lexington Avenue and 77th Street with Michael and Alison in exchange for her E. 74th St. one-bedroom. Edith said that the duo later tried to evict her, causing her to suffer a heart attack ..."
"... Now Nina, Robert, Nelson and mom Edith Anthoine are suing Wolff and Alison, 64, claiming they stole artwork from her home, raided a safe deposit box of antique jewelry and refused to share proceeds from the sale of a $1.85 million Lexington Ave. apartment ..."
President Trump has been the biggest constant headline since his announcement to run for
president in 2015. Since his presidency things have not changed. He has drawn large criticism
from both sides of the aisle for policy and personal decisions. But recently Michael Wolff has
become another reason why Trump continues to stay in the headlines for the wrong reasons.
His book 'Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House' might make Wolff the highest paid
author of 2018. His net worth is currently at $500,000 but according to sales his worth might
reach more than $12 million by the end of the year.
1. Michael Wolff got his girlfriend Victoria Floethe pregnant while he was still married to
another women. Back in 2015
Page Six reported the story. He was 61 at the time and she was 30 years his junior. Wolff's
wife Alison Anthoine refused to follow through with a divorce after Wolff filed.
2. Wolff and his estranged wife were involved in a $6 million legal battle with his mother
in law. The lawsuit was over real estate that belonged to the Anthoine family. According to
NY
Post The deal says matriarch Edith Anthoine can live in the one-bedroom unit until she
dies. Alison is allowed access twice a year, say court papers.
The settlement was reached after a judge found there was evidence supporting Edith's claims
that she'd swapped a four-bedroom on Lexington Avenue and 77th Street with Michael and Alison
in exchange for her E. 74th St. one-bedroom. Edith said that the duo later tried to evict her,
causing her to suffer a heart attack.
Now Nina, Robert, Nelson and mom Edith Anthoine are suing Wolff and Alison, 64, claiming
they stole artwork from her home, raided a safe deposit box of antique jewelry and refused to
share proceeds from the sale of a $1.85 million Lexington Ave. apartment
3. Wolff published his first article in 1974. The piece was an expose of Angela Atwood who
died the same year in a shootout with Los Angeles Police.
4. In 2004 Michael Wolff made an effort to buy New York Magazine. The publication's owners
decided to put it up for sale. He assembled a team of investors to make an offer but Primedia
inc decided to sell to investment banker Bruce Wasserstein.
5. In 1991, Wolff launched Michael Wolff & Company, Inc., specializing in
book-packaging.
Looks like wolff was not fan of Trump in 2016 at the time of Republicn convention
Notable quotes:
"... Even if he was criticized, or held to account on various issues, the sheer amount of his coverage, and the sense of awe and exuberance in it, seemed to neutralize the doubts, or make them less important. Print spent most of its energy covering the television coverage of Trump -- he was pure phenomenon. ..."
"... If there was a media bias, it was that eventually he would lose, although, from the media view, hopefully not too soon. Hence, the issues of who he really was -- his mendacity, corruption, vulgarity and lack of knowledge, to name just the tip of his unsuitability for the presidency -- did not have to be addressed because he was ever on his way to a crash and burn appointment. ..."
"... Even the hope that, come the general election, he would "pivot" to some more subdued and sensible version of himself was jaw-droppingly dashed at the Republican convention. He's more extreme, more unpredictable, more authoritarian, more Trump than anyone ever seemed to imagine he could be ..."
"... On television, the back-channel talk into the earpieces of guests, anchors, reporters and contributors was all about the weirdness of the event, the absurdity and even horror of it. But the coverage itself, the horse-race commentary, and the panels of political experts, and the interviews with "insiders," and the reports from the floor echoed all conventions past. The world was ending and television was covering it with its usual mixture of buoyancy, repetition, dispassion and sense of grand quadrennial spectacle. ..."
"... The New York Times' coverage of the Trump acceptance speech was a deconstruction of Trump's factual transgressions, doubletalk insinuations, twilight-in-America narrative and lowest-appeal dog whistles. This was, for the Times , quite as skeptical a treatment of a national political figure as perhaps since its coverage of Nixon at the height of Watergate. ..."
"... The Washington Post took this moment at the beginning of the general election campaign -- rather than the traditional end -- to formally, and with prejudice, you might say, disendorse Trump and his campaign as an historic threat to the nation. ..."
"... Tony Schwartz, the journalist who actually wrote The Art of the Deal, the book that in many ways created the Trump myth, and who has been largely silent about the experience, suddenly spoke up in a long interview in The New Yorker , telling an extraordinary tale of spin, fabrications, reality distortions and sociopath-like behavior. ..."
"... In a mind-boggling exhumation, Franklin Foer, in Slate ..."
"... As everyone has known, but largely failed to deliver on, there are many more shocking narratives to be written about Trump. The bankruptcy of the Trump Shuttle before it made its first payment on its debt, the peculiar financing of Mar-a-Lago, the baroqueness of Trump's personal life, now being conveniently ignored by his evangelical supporters, among them. ..."
The greatest media challenge of the long presidential campaign has been how exactly to talk about Donald Trump. Charlatan or candidate?
He Is preposterous, and yet people were watching him in numbers never before experienced in the cable news world, and he led the
pack of Republicans from the first debate onward. If this wasn't legitimacy, or at least a kind of legitimacy, what was?
Television, in its enthusiasm for ratings and a new political story, focused more on the Trump excitement than his bona fides.
Even if he was criticized, or held to account on various issues, the sheer amount of his coverage, and the sense of awe and exuberance
in it, seemed to neutralize the doubts, or make them less important. Print spent most of its energy covering the television coverage
of Trump -- he was pure phenomenon. And social media belonged to Trump -- his voice ruled.
If there was a media bias, it was that eventually he would lose, although, from the media view, hopefully not too soon. Hence,
the issues of who he really was -- his mendacity, corruption, vulgarity and lack of knowledge, to name just the tip of his unsuitability
for the presidency -- did not have to be addressed because he was ever on his way to a crash and burn appointment.
Now, suddenly, with appropriate panic, the media has to walk back the dog.
Even the hope that, come the general election, he would "pivot" to some more subdued and sensible version of himself was jaw-droppingly
dashed at the Republican convention. He's more extreme, more unpredictable, more authoritarian, more Trump than anyone ever seemed
to imagine he could be. Of the 20,000 media people at the convention in Cleveland, judging by the ad hoc focus groups that formed
throughout the week, all of us were shaken. None of us had ever seen a convention like this, or a candidate -- now on the precipice
of actually winning the presidency.
But how to express our incredulity?
On television, the back-channel talk into the earpieces of guests, anchors, reporters
and contributors was all about the weirdness of the event, the absurdity and even horror of it. But the coverage itself, the horse-race
commentary, and the panels of political experts, and the interviews with "insiders," and the reports from the floor echoed all conventions
past. The world was ending and television was covering it with its usual mixture of buoyancy, repetition, dispassion and sense of
grand quadrennial spectacle.
Television formats themselves gave Trump the advantage of business as usual.
Print, though, after a year of running behind the story, with puzzlement being its main point of view, seemed overnight to come
to attention and find its voice.
The New York Times'
coverage of the Trump acceptance speech was a deconstruction of Trump's factual transgressions, doubletalk insinuations, twilight-in-America
narrative and lowest-appeal dog whistles. This was, for the Times , quite as skeptical a treatment of a national political figure
as perhaps since its coverage of Nixon at the height of Watergate.
The Washington Post took this moment at the beginning of the general election campaign -- rather than the traditional end
-- to formally, and with prejudice, you might say,
disendorse Trump and his campaign as an historic threat to the nation.
Nicholas Kristof in the Times , after a year of ineffective press complaints about Trump's race baiting, got down to
work and traced
a clear line of old-fashioned bigotry through Trump's very public history. His sins were not just rhetorical, but personal -- systematically
violating equal protection laws. (Say this for Trump, he hides in plain sight.)
Tony Schwartz, the journalist who actually wrote The Art of the Deal, the book that in many ways created the Trump myth, and
who has been largely silent about the experience, suddenly spoke up in a long
interview in The New
Yorker , telling an extraordinary tale of spin, fabrications, reality distortions and sociopath-like behavior.
In a mind-boggling exhumation, Franklin Foer, in Slate -- with a follow-up by political blogger Josh Marshall --
unearthed Trump's deep connection to Russian interests and reliance on Russian money, the background to Trump's heretofore seemingly
inexplicable praise and appreciation of Vladimir Putin. Bad enough if it were just one strongman to another, but it is in fact, in
Foer's analysis, debtor to lender. It's the Russians who have been propping up a bankrupt Trump. It's a never-before-even-imagined
issue in American foreign policy: What if the president's personal business interests -- his and his family's fortune -- depend on
the good will of a foreign power? And suddenly, this seemed realer still in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee by Russian-connected
intelligence agencies and the leak of its embarrassing emails.
As everyone has known, but largely failed to deliver on, there are many more shocking narratives to be written about Trump.
The bankruptcy of the Trump Shuttle before it made its first payment on its debt, the peculiar financing of Mar-a-Lago, the baroqueness
of Trump's personal life, now being conveniently ignored by his evangelical supporters, among them.
But, not only may print have waited too long to find its voice, it may also be too late for print to matter. In the past, in a
conventional world, print led the media discussion. Television took its cues from national newspapers and news magazines. If anything,
television now takes its cues from social media, the form of media most dominated by Trump himself.
Television, as it created Trump, yet could break him and help decide this campaign. The question is, in the short time remaining,
does it have the wherewithal, the form, the language, the backbone -- with yet no real help from Hillary Clinton, struggling to find
her own voice -- to express what is in front of its face?
"... During the press conference, Trump called the book a "work of fiction" and said it was a "disgrace" that Wolff could "do something like this." ..."
"... "Libel laws are very weak in this country," Trump said. "If they were stronger, hopefully, you would not have something like that happen." ..."
In the book
, former White House chief strategist and head of Breitbart News, Steve Bannon, is quoted
eviscerating Trump, his son Donald Trump Jr., his daughter Ivanka Trump, and his son-in-law
Jared Kushner.
During the press conference, Trump called the book a "work of fiction" and said it was
a "disgrace" that Wolff could "do something like this."
"Libel laws are very weak in this country," Trump said. "If they were stronger,
hopefully, you would not have something like that happen."
He added that Wolff did not know him at all and did not interview him, though he then said
Wolff interviewed him once "a long time ago" for a magazine story.
"I guess 'Sloppy Steve' [Bannon] brought him into the White House a lot," Trump said.
"That's why 'Sloppy Steve' is looking for a job."
In a noteworthy exchange Friday during an interview with "Today" show host Savannah
Guthrie, Wolff said
every single person around Trump , including senior aides and family members, questioned
his intelligence and fitness for office.
Sales of Michael Wolff's book "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House" have gotten off
to a sizzling start.
John Sargent, chief executive of publisher Macmillan, confirmed that a million copies had
been sold by the close of business on Monday, including e-books, audiobooks and hardcover
editions that have been sold or are on order from consumers. The New Yorker reported the figure
earlier, citing an interview with Mr. Wolff.
Even the very first sentence of this opinion piece is wrong.
Ever since Steve Bannon's comments to Michael Wolff...
All we have is what Wolff and his ghost writers have claimed that Bannon said.
Wolff has a long-standing and well-known poor relationship with the truth. "Wolff claims...."
is no reason to believe anything.
"This is what happens when a narcissistic maniac volunteers to be the lackey of another,
more powerful, narcissistic maniac"
Yes, quite, you can only really have one overwhelming narcissist in a room at a time. How
could one working for the other possibly work, thats like putting the North Poles of two
really powerful magnets together?
If the book is, as many conservative claim, fake news and utter bullshit from front to back,
why then isn't everyone having a hearty laugh at it, clapping Bannon on the back, and taking
him out for drinks? ....
"... That's not to endorse the guy, who has played his hand badly. I don't think it's a coincidence that "Steve Bannon" rhymes and scans with "loose cannon." ..."
"... What I'm saying is that Bannon is a better Trumpist than Trump. I like Trump_vs_deep_state more than I like either guy. I dream fondly of a well-mannered, well-read politician of the traditional gray and boring type -- a Coolidge or an Eisenhower -- who is a dogmatic and unwavering Trumpist. ..."
"... ...I want my politicians and their advisers to have the right ideas, but I also want them to be firm, cunning, and effective in making those ideas national policy and law. I want a gray, boring, politically skillful Trumpist. ..."
Following reports that [Ivanka Trump's husband Jared] Kushner had tried to set up a
private communication channel with the Kremlin, Bannon called Ivanka a "f–king liar,"
in front of the President.
Trump responded only by telling her "I told you this is a tough town, baby" according to
Wolff's book.
That sounds true to me -- very Trumpish, even though it goes against the grain of other
things we've heard, and that Michael Wolff says, about the President's partiality to his
children.
That his children are, in their general sensibilities, metropolitan liberals seems to be one
of the main points of contention between Trump and Bannon. In the matter of not suffering fools
gladly, Bannon is easily Trump's match; but un -like Trump he regards all metropolitan
liberals, without qualification or favor, as fools.
Inevitably one finds oneself taking sides here: Trumpite or Bannonite. I'm going to declare
myself, with a major qualification, a Bannonite. I like
Bannon's strong nationalism and his skepticism of traditional postwar American
conservatism, with its missionary globalism and its fantasies about private-enterprise
healthcare provision.
That's not to endorse the guy, who has played his hand badly. I don't think it's a
coincidence that "Steve Bannon" rhymes and scans with "loose
cannon."
I'd add the same qualification to my support for Trump, though. The President does sometimes
come across as coarse and ignorant.
What I'm saying is that Bannon is a better Trumpist than Trump. I like Trump_vs_deep_state more
than I like either guy. I dream fondly of a
well-mannered, well-read politician of the traditional gray and boring type -- a Coolidge
or an Eisenhower -- who is a dogmatic and unwavering Trumpist.
...I want my politicians and their advisers to have the right ideas, but I also want
them to be firm, cunning, and effective in making those ideas national policy and law. I want a
gray, boring, politically skillful Trumpist.
It completes a spectacular fallout between Mr Bannon, who was credited with securing Mr
Trump the White House, and the president himself.
... ... ...
It is not clear whether Mr Bannon, at the heart of Mr Trump's administration less than a
year ago, will continue his attempt to unseat incumbent Republicans.
"... The real problem, in fact, was not the evil flowing into the American homeland from abroad -- whether imports, illegals or terrorists. Rather, it was the outward flow of Washington's monetary and military imperialism that was gutting capitalist prosperity domestically and generating terrorist blowback abroad. ..."
"... Reprinted excerpt with permission from David Stockman's ContraCorner . ..."
Good riddance to Steve Bannon. The last thing America needed was a
conservative/populist/statist alternative to the Welfare State/Warfare State/Bailout State
status quo. Yet what Bannonism boiled down to was essentially acquiescence to the latter --
even as it drove politicization deeper into the sphere of culture, communications and
commerce.
... ... ...
The real problem, in fact, was not the evil flowing into the American homeland from
abroad -- whether imports, illegals or terrorists. Rather, it was the outward flow of
Washington's monetary and military imperialism that was gutting capitalist prosperity
domestically and generating terrorist blowback abroad.
... ... ...
Nor did it grasp that the real cause of Flyover America's distress is the Fed's multi-decade
regime of financial repression and Wall Street price-keeping policies which: (1) deplete the
real pay of workers via the FOMC's absurd 2 percent inflation target; (2) savage the bank
balances of savers and retirees via ZIRP; (3) gut jobs, investment and real pay in the business
sector via the C-suites' strip-mining of corporate balance sheets and cash flows to fund Wall
Street-pleasing stock buybacks, fatter dividends and M&A empire building; and 4) impale the
bottom 80 percent of households on a un-repayable treadmill of (temporarily) cheap debt in
order to sustain a simulacrum of middle class living standards.
At the same time, these pernicious monetary central planning policies did fuel the greatest
(unsustainable) financial asset inflation in recorded history, thereby showering the top one
percent and 10 percent with upwards of $35 trillion of windfall wealth (on paper). At bottom,
Fed policy amounted to "trickle-up" with malice aforethought, and it was sponsored and endorsed
by the beltway bipartisan consensus.
"... I am sorry Ben but you have to realise that the columnist Michael Wolfe has been known for making up quote and spreading bullshit. I agree Bannon was stupid for not researching his interviewer. ..."
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Bannon just threw the Trump's family under the bus... and you got Benny Hill over here trying to
soft-shoe explain this away.... lol 3
If
Bannon wasn't a powerful figure, why did Trump name him Chief Strategist of his campaign and want to put him in the
National Security Council? Calling Bannon dumb is one thing but calling him unimportant is a really really far reach
Ben.
I
am sorry Ben but you have to realise that the columnist Michael Wolfe has been known for making up quote and spreading
bullshit. I agree Bannon was stupid for not researching his interviewer. Sorry but this seems a little terrible about your
researcher.
I
wish Ben would give us insight on how Steve Bannon was as a boss. It's seems to me that there is no love loss on that
account. He wouldn't be going nails to the wall against Bannon if he actually liked the guy.
Goat In A Boat On A Moat
6 days ago
If
Bannon is talking shit, why issue a cease and desist and why state he has broken a NDA?
This man has a lot of hate, he can easily afford anger management counseling thanks to CNN
promoting his book. He as written a disclaimer in his own book (saying its not all
factual).
In the light of the completely fictional book by Michael Wolff, 'Fire and
Fury', which is about Donald Trump's White House and where nothing appears to be taken
from any fact whatsoever, we thought we would write a totally and heavily un-researched
exposure piece on Michael Wolff, claiming that he is a "pedophile" solely based on his horrific
appearance. Why not ?
Yes, you can't make this stuff up, but look, we're doing what he does, making stuff up, so
the question really is: "Is Michael Wolff a pedophile?" if that really is his real name.
Answers on a Deep State postcard please.
Yes, all this from the man who wrote that Donald Trump didn't think he would win the
Presidency while claiming at the same time that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians, which
makes no sense at all.
Thus, we now bring you this unsolicited and very salacious article, where we contemplate in
our minds whether or not Michael Wolff is in fact just a creepy old man and a lover of
children, in the worst way possible Our reasoning behind this? Wait for it!
Just look at him! Could it be those beady eyes, that sickly pale skin, and that weird shaped
head that gives it away ? We're not sure, but we promise to look a little closer.
New
York Magazine (and a column about it in
THR ), Trump has attacked the book and its veracity. In a tweet on Thursday , the
president called the book "full of lies, misrepresentations and sources that don't exist."
Trump also said that he had not provided Wolff with access to the White House for the book.
On Thursday, Trump's attorney Charles Harder also sent an
11-page legal demand to Wolff and his publisher, Henry Holt & Co., alleging that the
book committed defamation, false-light invasion of privacy and an inducement of breach of Steve
Bannon's contract with the Trump campaign. The pressure induced Henry Holt & Co. to move up
its release date to Jan. 5 from Jan. 9.
BBC Radio host Nick Robinson pressed Wolff on his reporting methods, to which he responded
that he had written the book in the "time-honored fashion" of talking to sources close to the
events in the White House and often granting them anonymity. Wolff added that he was able to
take up residence in the West Wing because he knew Trump -- on whom he had written a
THR cover story during the 2016 campaign -- and Bannon and that he had gotten the
president to "shrug his shoulders and [say] 'Okay, yeah'" to granting him access to the White
House.
Another anti-Trump mainstream media narrative unravels in a matter of days.
Author
of 'Fire and Fury', Michael Wolff is now coming clean about who exactly he interviewed in
the White House, and who he did not.
Wolff admitted that he DID NOT interview any White House cabinet officials for 'Fire and
Fury', and his so-called interview of Trump consisted of greeting the US President in the White
House, and chatting "as though we were friends."
Hardly an on-the-record interview by a journalist.
Infowars has more details on Wolff's admission to basically being a hack
Wolff made the admission on Monday in an interview on "CBS This Morning."
Host Norah O'Donnell asked Wolf, "Did you speak to any members of the president's Cabinet
for this book?"
Wolff responded, "I did not."
You did not?" O'Donnell repeated.
"I did not," Wolff confirmed.
She then asked Wolff if he ever interviewed Vice President Mike Pence.
"I did not," Wolff said again.
O'Donnell also noted Trump denied having ever been interviewed by Wolff.
"The president denies he ever spoke to you for the book, at all," O'Donnell said.
"I probably think he had no idea he was speaking to me for this book," Wolff said. "When I
would meet the president in the White House we would chat as though we were friends."
"But that's not an interview, to greet someone and say, 'Hello,'" O'Donnell pointed out.
"That's not a journalistic exercise."
Wolff struggled to explain away O'Donnell's point and insisted he did sit down with Trump
for three hours during his months in the White House even though Wolff was "sure he [Trump]
didn't think they were interviews."
Wolff describes quotes from multiple Trump administration Cabinet members in Fire &
Fury, including the National Security Advisor and Treasury Secretary.
"For (Treasury Secretary) Steve Mnuchin and (former Trump White House chief of staff)
Reince Priebus, the president was an 'idiot.' For (former Goldman Sachs exec) Gary Cohn, he
was 'dumb as sh-t.' For (National Security Adviser) H.R. McMaster he was a 'dope.' The list
went on," Wolff said.
"... In this excerpt, Roger Ailes and Steve Bannon are portrayed as allies who are attempting to move forward an objective and so forth, and they're friends and so forth. That was news to me, is all I'll say. That whole conversation that took place at dinner that's excerpted in the book, I was reading that and I said, "This doesn't jibe with what people that are quoted here have told me." So I'm in a situation personally where I'm not knowing which is which now. ..."
"... Bannon's been all over the place. I mean, Bannon has been thought of as Trump's right-hand man on policy, agenda, populism, advancing the Trump agenda and all this. ..."
"... And, at other occasions, Bannon has appeared to be at great conflict with Trump, thinking that Trump doesn't know what he's doing, that Bannon is the reason anything happened. He's giving interviews to reporters and conveying that point of view. He goes on 60 Minutes and then contradicts that. He's back to saying the Russian collusion story is a nothing burger. Nothing to it. Trump is great. It's all over the ballpark. You can't keep track of it. And then I start asking, "Why is everybody so fascinated and interested in this?" ..."
"... This book just destroys the Trump White House. It destroys Trump, it destroys Melania, it destroys Trump's family, it destroys Ivanka, it destroys Jared Kushner, it destroys everybody. It makes it look like Trump didn't want to win, had no idea how to win, was devastated when he did win, that his wife was crying when they won, that he didn't want to be inaugurated -- and then he did. After a while, Trump did a giant 180 and really was excited about winning and couldn't wait to be sworn in, couldn't wait to start doing his agenda. ..."
"... A reporter said, "Did Steve Bannon betray you, Mr. President?" ..."
In this excerpt, Roger Ailes and Steve Bannon are portrayed
as allies who are attempting to move forward an objective and so forth, and they're friends and
so forth. That was news to me, is all I'll say. That whole conversation that took place at
dinner that's excerpted in the book, I was reading that and I said, "This doesn't jibe with
what people that are quoted here have told me." So I'm in a situation personally where I'm not
knowing which is which now.
So then I have to ask myself, "Well, would one of the people involved in this have told me
the truth about it?" Because everybody exaggerates, and everybody wants to make themselves seem
important and relevant and close to the seat of power. So you have to have a filter for some of
this stuff and that's why I read these excerpts and I read these reports, and I know some of
the people involved well, and I've met others, but don't know them well. And a lot of it just
doesn't make sense with things that I've heard previously.
So maybe as more of this unfolds and more excerpts The book is eventually gonna get
published, especially now with the cease-and-desist order from the president's lawyer. That's
gonna guarantee the thing gets published. It's going to guarantee that the thing is widely
read. Here is the president last night, and this is a straight-up comparison.
Bannon's been all over the place. I mean, Bannon has been thought of as Trump's
right-hand man on policy, agenda, populism, advancing the Trump agenda and all this.
And, at other occasions, Bannon has appeared to be at great conflict with Trump,
thinking that Trump doesn't know what he's doing, that Bannon is the reason anything happened.
He's giving interviews to reporters and conveying that point of view. He goes on 60 Minutes and
then contradicts that. He's back to saying the Russian collusion story is a nothing burger.
Nothing to it. Trump is great. It's all over the ballpark. You can't keep track of it. And then
I start asking, "Why is everybody so fascinated and interested in this?"
It's because Bannon was close to the seat of power.
So, the book comes out, the excerpt comes out yesterday, and it just excoriates. This
book just destroys the Trump White House. It destroys Trump, it destroys Melania, it destroys
Trump's family, it destroys Ivanka, it destroys Jared Kushner, it destroys everybody. It makes
it look like Trump didn't want to win, had no idea how to win, was devastated when he did win,
that his wife was crying when they won, that he didn't want to be inaugurated -- and then he
did. After a while, Trump did a giant 180 and really was excited about winning and couldn't
wait to be sworn in, couldn't wait to start doing his agenda.
Okay, so here's a guy who didn't want to win. That's what this excerpt in this book claims.
He didn't want to win. His wife was promised! Trump promised Melania they wouldn't win. And you
go and you look at how hard Trump was campaigning and you look at all the rallies and you look
at how he was on message at every rally, sometimes five a day. And every one of those rallies
was overflowing, and every one of those rallies had the same energy. And there was no doubt
that there was something happening in this campaign.
And it did not look like a campaign of a bunch of people who wanted to lose. Now, I could
understand if a lot of them thought they had no prayer of winning. I mean, everybody thought
Hillary was gonna win in a landslide. Everybody thought that. All the smart people, all of the
media, all of the Washington establishment -- everybody -- thought that Hillary was gonna win.
This book purports to say that Trump thought the same thing, that he's doing this to become the
most famous guy in the world.
That he's doing this to set up more and more business opportunities after the campaign is
over. Or that he's doing this to start his own news network with Roger Ailes (that was a
crock), or that he's doing this to do whatever. I mean, there were any number of reasons why he
was doing this, but not one of them was to win. And then you measure that against Trump's
messages during the rallies and during the campaign; it doesn't look like a guy that didn't
want to win.
Now, if you talk about didn't expect to win, that's another thing. That requires getting in
somebody's head or having very close relationship with 'em where they open up and tell you the
truth. But there was none of that leaked during the campaign that Trump didn't expect to win,
that Trump didn't want to win. This is one of these things that happens after the fact.
Everybody's denying it.
Melania's denying it. Trump is denying it. Now they're sending out the cease-and-desist
order, and Trump had a reaction. This was this morning at the White House. There was a meeting
with Republican senators. After that, they had their little gaggle with the media Q&A.
A reporter said, "Did Steve Bannon betray you, Mr. President?"
Lose lips sink ships: "In the book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," Bannon called Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with
Russians "treasonous" and said Ivanka Trump is "dumb as a brick."
Notable quotes:
"... CNN reported that there's a "hard push" to convince Breitbart CEO Larry Solov and Susie Breitbart, widow of founder Andrew Breitbart, to part ways with Bannon. ..."
"... Bannon has quickly lost his footing in the aftermath of his involvement of a soon-to-be-released book that casts Trump, his family and tenure in a wholly negative light. ..."
"... Conservative pundits took their shot at Bannon on Thursday; Matt Drudge tweeted about the Bannon-Breitbart fallout and Rush Limbaugh reminded his audience that Bannon was "the big leaker" while in the White House ..."
The board of Breitbart News Network LLC. is considering removing Steve Bannon as chairman, The Wall Street Journal reports.
Many of the board members -- including Rebekah Mercer, daughter of billionaire financier Robert Mercer -- are supportive of such
a move, pending legal entanglements with Bannon that might have to get ironed out, the Journal reported.
CNN reported that there's a "hard push" to convince Breitbart CEO Larry Solov and Susie Breitbart, widow of founder Andrew Breitbart,
to part ways with Bannon.
Even the White House on Thursday said Breitbart should consider axing Bannon.
The Mercers distanced themselves from Bannon on Thursday, publicly rebuking the now disgraced former chief strategist to President
Donald Trump and yanking their financial support.
Bannon has quickly lost his footing in the aftermath of his involvement of a soon-to-be-released book that casts Trump, his family
and tenure in a wholly negative light.
In the book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," Bannon called Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with Russians "treasonous"
and said Ivanka Trump is "dumb as a brick."
Conservative pundits took their shot at Bannon on Thursday; Matt Drudge tweeted about the Bannon-Breitbart fallout and Rush
Limbaugh reminded his audience that Bannon was "the big leaker" while in the White House
"... When Donald Trump burst onto the scene, Bannon had found what he is quoted describing as a "blunt instrument for us," a man who had "taken this nationalist movement and moved it up twenty years." ..."
"... the rise of Bannon and Trump holds lessons for the Dissident Right. One of them: despite how powerful the Establishment may appear, there are fatal disconnects between it and the people it rules -- for example, on social and identity issues. Thus, many members of this Ruling Class, such as the Republican strategists who predicted a Jeb or Rubio victory, have been more successful in deluding themselves than they have been in building any kind of effective base. Similarly, Clinton campaign operatives believed, without much evidence, that undecided voters would eventually break in their favor. Because the thought of a Trump presidency was too horrifying for them to contemplate, they refused to recognize polls showing a close race, ignored the Midwest and sauntered their candidate off to Arizona in the final days. ..."
"... Of course, currently the ideas that Bannon fought for appear to be on the wane, leading him to declare upon leaving the White House that the "Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over." [ Weekly Standard, August 18, 2017] ..."
"... But this is probably somewhat of an exaggeration. I doubt that Bannon laments the fact that the current president is Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio. But it has proved much more difficult to change government policy than to win an election. Unlike GOP strategists, the Deep State appears to know what it is doing. ..."
Throughout 2016, I would occasionally turn on the television to see how the punditocracy was
responding to the mounting
Trump tsunami . If you get most of your news online, watching cable news is frustrating.
The commentary is so dumbed down and
painfully
reflective of speaker's biases, you can always basically guess what's coming next. With a
few exceptions -- above all Ann Coulter 's famous June 19, 2015
prediction of a Trump victory on
Bill Maher -- these pundits again and again told us that Trump would eventually go away,
first after he made this or that gaffe, then after he "failed" in a debate, then after people
actually started voting in the primaries.
The most interesting cases to me: the "
Republican strategists ," brought on to CNN and MSNBC to give the audience the illusion
that they were hearing both sides: Nicole Wallace, Steve Schmidt, Ana Navarro, Rick Wilson,
Margaret Hoover, Todd Harris.
Mike Murphy even convinced donors to hand him over $100 million to make Jeb Bush the
next president -- [
Jeb's 2016 departure draws out Mike Murphy critics , By Maeve Reston, February 22,
2016]
With campaigns and donors throwing money at these people, and the Main Stream Media touting
them, it was easy to assume they must know what they were talking about. Significantly, each of
these pundits was a national security hawk, center-right on economic issues, and just as
horrified by "
racism " and " sexism
" as their
Leftist counterparts . By a remarkable coincidence, the "
strategic " advice that they gave to Republican candidates lined up perfectly with these
positions. Their prominence was a mirage created by the fact that the MSM
handed this token opposition the Megaphone
because they did not challenge the core prejudices of the
bipartisan Ruling Class.
And of course they were all humiliated in a spectacular fashion, November 8 being only the
climax.
Joshua Green begins his book Devil's
Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency by giving us a
view inside the Trump campaign on election night, before tracing Steve Bannon's path up to that
point. Reliving the journey is one of the joys of Green's work, which is mostly an intellectual
biography of Steve Bannon,
with a special focus on his relationship with Trump and the election.
Bannon
joined the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016 without any previous experience in
electoral politics. But like the candidate himself, the Breitbart editor showed that he
understood the nature of American politics and the GOP base
better than Establishment Republicans. The "strategists'" supposed "expertise," "strategic
advice," and "analysis" was in reality built on a house of cards. (In fact, the
Bannon-Trump view of the electorate is closer to the consensus
among political scientists that, unlike more nationalist and populist policies,
Republican Establishment positions have relatively little popular support. [ Political Divisions in 2016 and Beyon d | Tensions Between and Within the Two
Parties, Voter Study Group, June 2017]).
Bannon at Breitbart.com gave the Republican base what it wanted. Moral: in a democracy, you
always have a chance at winning when public opinion (or at least intraparty opinion) is on your
side.
Green traces Bannon's journey from his Irish-Catholic
working-class roots and traditionalist upbringing, to his time in the Navy, at Harvard
Business School and Goldman Sachs, and finally Breitbart.com and the pinnacle of American
politics. The picture
that emerges is of a man with principles and vigor, refusing to submit to the inertia that
is part of the human condition, with enough confidence to realize that life is too short to not
make major changes when staying on the current path is not going to allow him to accomplish his
goals.
For example, Bannon originally wanted a career in defense policy, and took a job in the
Pentagon during the Reagan administration. Yet he was off to Harvard Business School when he
realized that the rigid bureaucracy
that he was a part of would not let him move up to a high-level position until he was
middle-aged. Decades later, after taking over his website upon the unexpected death of Andrew Breitbart in
2012, it would have been easy to go low-risk -- sticking to Establishment scripts, making life
comfortable for Republican elites, implicitly submitting to the taboos of the Left.
Instead , he helped turn Breitbart News into a major voice of the populist tide that has
been remaking center-right politics across the globe.
When Donald Trump burst onto the scene, Bannon had found what he is quoted describing as
a "blunt instrument for us," a man who had "taken this nationalist movement and moved it up
twenty years."
From Green, we learn much about Bannon's intellectual influences. Surprisingly, although he
was raised as a Roman Catholic and maintains that faith today, we find out that Bannon briefly
practiced Zen Buddhism while in the Navy. There are other unusual influences that make
appearances in the book, including Rightist philosopher Julius
Evola and
René Guénon, a French occultist who eventually became a Sufi Muslim. Although
not exactly my cup of tea, such eccentric intellectual interests reflect a curious mind that
refuses to restrict itself to fashionable influences.
It's incorrect to call Devil's Bargain a biography. There is practically no mention
of Bannon's personal life -- wives, children. I had to Google to find out that he has three
daughters. His childhood is only discussed in the context of how it may have influenced his
beliefs and political development.
Rather, we get information on Bannon's intellectual and career pursuits and his
relationships with consequential figures such as mega-donor Robert Mercer, Andrew Breitbart and
Donald Trump.
As Bannon exits the White House and returns to Breitbart, we must hope that Bannon and the
movement he's helped to create accomplish enough in the future to inspire more complete
biographies.
But the rise of Bannon and Trump holds lessons for the Dissident Right. One of them:
despite how powerful the Establishment may appear, there are fatal disconnects between it and
the people it rules -- for example, on social and identity issues. Thus, many members of this
Ruling Class, such as the Republican strategists who predicted a Jeb or Rubio victory, have
been more successful in deluding themselves than they have been in building any kind of
effective base. Similarly, Clinton campaign operatives believed, without much evidence, that
undecided voters would eventually break in their favor. Because the thought of a Trump
presidency was too horrifying for them to contemplate, they refused to recognize polls showing
a close race, ignored the Midwest and sauntered their candidate off to Arizona in the final
days.
Of course, currently the ideas that Bannon fought for appear to be on the wane, leading
him to declare upon leaving the White House that the "Trump presidency that we fought for, and
won, is over." [
Weekly Standard, August 18, 2017]
But this is probably somewhat of an exaggeration. I doubt that Bannon laments the fact
that the current president is Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio. But it
has proved much more difficult to change government policy than to win an election. Unlike GOP
strategists, the Deep State appears to know what it is doing.
In his memoir Nixon's White House Wars , Pat Buchanan writes about how, despite
playing a pivotal role in the election of 1968, the conservative movement was
mostly shut out of high-level jobs:
Then there was the painful reality with which the right had to come to terms. Though our
movement had exhibited real power in capturing the nomination for Barry Goldwater and helping
Nixon crush the Rockefeller-Romney wing of the Republican Party, and though we were
playing a pivotal role in the election of 1968, the conservative movement was
mostly shut out of high-level jobs:
Then there was the painful reality with which the right had to come to terms. Though our
movement had exhibited real power in capturing the nomination for Barry Goldwater and helping
Nixon crush the Rockefeller-Romney wing of the Republican Party, and though we were veterans
of a victorious presidential campaign, few of us had served in the executive branch. We
lacked titles, resumes, credentials Our pool of experienced public servants who could
seamlessly move into top positions was miniscule compared to that of the liberal Democrats
who had dominated the capital's politics since FDR arrived in 1933.
History repeated itself in 2016, when Donald Trump would win the presidency on a nationalist
platform but find few qualified individuals who could reliably implement his agenda.
If nationalists want to ensure that their next generation of leaders is able to effectively
implement the policies they run on, they are going to have to engage in the slow and tedious
project of working their way up through powerful institutions.
Bannon may have been and remains an "outsider" to the political Establishment. But
nonetheless, throughout his life he has leveraged elite institutions such as Harvard, Goldman
Sachs, the Republican Party, and even Hollywood in order to become financially independent and
free to pursue his political goals.
If enough of those on the Dissident Right forge a similar path, we can be sure that future
nationalist political victories will be less hollow. Jeremy Cooper is a specialist in
international politics and an observer of global trends. Follow him at @NeoNeoLiberal .
@Clyde
Wilson Is there any evidence that Trump even tried to find the right people to fill the
offices? Having dabbled ever so slightly in this process in the spring, my impression is that
there is a mechanism run largely by lawyers from the big DC law firms (presumably one for
each party) who are the gatekeepers for applicants. The result of this system, which I have
little doubt that the "Trump Team" did not try to take on (after all, they had only a couple
of months to put together the beginnings of a team, and that left little or no time replacing
The Swamp Machine ) is that the key positions throughout the administration are largely
filled with lawyers from connected law firms. After all, who better to administer the
government than lawyers -- ? -- ?
At any rate, my experience with the process was: on your marks, get set, nothing. 30 years
experience in and around federal government, but not a lawyer. Don't call us, we don't want
to talk to you. (I also made clear in my cover letter that the key motivator for my
application -- and first ever political contributions -- was Trump and his agenda. In
retrospect, this "admission" was probably a kiss of death. I was a Trumpite. Eeeewww -- -- --
(I may well not have been qualified for anything, but I'm SURE I was disqualified by my
support for Trump )
"... Sanders: "Yeah. So far, from what I can tell of the roughly just over a dozen interactions that he had with officials at the White House, I think close to 95 percent were all done so at the request of (former adviser) Mr. (Steve) Bannon." ..."
Wolff claims that over an 18-month period, he conducted more than 200 interviews with Trump
and senior staff. In the course of reporting his book, Wolff said he was able to take up
"something like a semi-permanent seat on a couch in the West Wing."
Trump never explicitly allowed his visits nor barred him from the White House, Wolff said,
which allowed Wolff to exploit this "non-disapproval" to gain access through "various senior
staffers." Here's the author's account of his access, as written in the Hollywood Reporter (the
circumstances of which we could not independently verify):
"Since the new White House was often uncertain about what the president meant or did not
mean in any given utterance, his non-disapproval became a kind of passport for me to hang
around -- checking in each week at the Hay-Adams hotel, making appointments with various senior
staffers who put my name in the 'system,' and then wandering across the street to the White
House and plunking myself down, day after day, on a West Wing couch."
... ... ...
During a White House press briefing, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders faced questions
about Wolff's access from one journalist who recalled seeing Wolff in the building multiple
times. Here's their Jan. 3 exchange:
Margaret Brennan, CBS News: "Sarah, can you clarify? Because many of us here have seen
Michael Wolff at the White House on multiple occasions. We've seen him first-hand. So we know
he was here. Who gave him access to the White House? What was he here for? Can you explain any
of that since we don't have access to the logs?"
Sanders: "Yeah. So far, from what I can tell of the roughly just over a dozen
interactions that he had with officials at the White House, I think close to 95 percent were
all done so at the request of (former adviser) Mr. (Steve) Bannon."
... ... ...
However, she did not dispute that Wolff had been "seen often" with Bannon in his White House
office.
"I know there were a number of times where he met with Steve. And I think they have both
said and repeated that that happened," she said in a Jan. 5 interview on Fox & Friends. "We
looked at the logs. We know that they met on multiple occasions. He was frequently seen meeting
with him. So I think that's a pretty indisputable fact on that front."
President Donald Trump's Saturday morning tweet storm has been the dominant news story in
the US over the weekend. And with the White House staff still in disarray following the
publication of Michael Wolff's "Fire and Fury" book, senior aide Stephen Miller took to the
Sunday shows, appearing on "State of the Union"
With Jake Tapper to rebut CNN's questions about Trump's fitness for office and some of the
claims in Wolff's book about former Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon's role in the
administration.
This "unfit for office" attack is from Hillary Clinton playbook.
Notable quotes:
"... "This is just so absurd, it's so ridiculous," Ruddy told CNN "New Day" co-anchor Chris Cuomo on claims by writer Michael Wolff in his new book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House." Cuomo cited an interview Wolff gave Friday morning on NBC's "Today" show where he claimed "100 percent" of the White House staff believes the president is mentally unfit for office. ..."
Claims about President Donald Trump's mental status -- including that he often repeats
himself several times over a few minutes -- are "trash, actually," Newsmax CEO Christopher
Ruddy, a friend of the president's, said Friday.
"This is just so absurd, it's so ridiculous," Ruddy told CNN "New Day" co-anchor Chris Cuomo
on claims by writer Michael Wolff in his new book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White
House." Cuomo cited an interview Wolff gave Friday morning on NBC's "Today" show where he claimed
"100 percent" of the White House staff believes the president is mentally unfit for
office.
While admitting to have been "disappointed" in being ousted in June 2016 as Trump campaign manager "by the Trump family," Corey
Lewandowski rebuked Michael Wolff's "Fire and Fury" claims he called Trump's elder sons "stupid" or son-in-law Jared Kushner "the
butler."
"The guy [Wolff] is a liar, is what it comes down to, and I don't think anybody who looks at what's in this book can take it honestly,"
Lewandowski told "Fox News Sunday"
". . . This is a book of fiction. Not only is it not accurate, there are so many misrepresentations in this book that it shouldn't
be taken seriously," the current head of a pro-Trump Super PAC told host Chris Wallace, adding the book lacks "journalistic integrity"
and concluded: "This book is a complete fabrication."
Lewandowski's appearance sought to discredit the claims in Wolff's salacious account of palace intrigue within the Trump White
House, saying the author's failure to talk to him about second-hand statements made against the Trump family was an "injustice to
the integrity of publishing a book."
"Mr. Wolff and I never spoke about this book, so where he comes up with the assertions on what I think of the Trump kids or Jared
Kushner are completely made up – I've never spoken to him about this," Lewandowski, a New Hampshire Republican strategist, told Wallace.
Lewandowski added a call for an apology to the Trump family from Steve Bannon for his quoted contributions to Wolff's questioned
reporting – an apology which came later Sunday via a detailed
statement to Axios.
Lewandowski was not the only one appearing on Sunday's political talk circuit, as White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller
"destroyed" host " Jake Tapper of Fake News CNN" –
according to Trump – in a "State of the Union" appearance.
Cuomo pointed out that the White House gave Wolff "plenty of access," but Caputo insisted
that there are "plenty of passages" in Wolff's book that are "flat false," including a claim
that the president didn't know who House Speaker John Boehner was.
Caputo also said he thinks former chief strategist Steve Bannon, who came under fire from
the president for his quotes in the book, was "quoted out of context," and he believes Bannon's
comments Sunday night, that he has not accused Donald Trump Jr. of acting in a treasonous
manner.
"I don't believe the meeting was treasonous or unpatriotic," Caputo said of Trump Jr.'s
meeting during the campaign with Russians who said they had negative information about Hillary
Clinton.
He also said he does not believe there is a rivalry between Trump and Bannon, because "there
is no rivalry between a hammer and a nail. . . of course, the president is the hammer."
"... As he does so, I would like to remind my colleagues still inside the White House: You don't have to be friends with each and every journalist who seeks you out. But if you do engage, remember that smartphones make excellent recording devices. ..."
As he does so, I would like to remind my colleagues still inside the White House: You
don't have to be friends with each and every journalist who seeks you out. But if you do
engage, remember that smartphones make excellent recording devices.
Who interesting questions that were asked: (1) why Wolff defended WH before publishing this
slander? (2) why he was sitting on this merial so long.
Notable quotes:
"... In its review of Wolff's book Burn Rate, Brill's Content criticized Wolff for "apparent factual errors" and said that 13 people, including subjects he mentioned, complained that Wolff had "invented or changed quotes ..."
"... This guy is a male version of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and almost as slimy. ..."
1) In 1998, Wolff published a book, Burn Rate, which recounted the details of the
financing, positioning, personalities, and ultimate breakdown of Wolff's start-up Internet
company, Wolff New Media. The book became a bestseller. In its review of Wolff's book
Burn Rate, Brill's Content criticized Wolff for "apparent factual errors" and said that 13
people, including subjects he mentioned, complained that Wolff had "invented or changed
quotes
2) In a 2004 cover story for The New Republic, Michelle Cottle wrote that Wolff was
"uninterested in the working press," preferring to focus on "the power players -- the moguls"
and was "fixated on culture, style, buzz, and money, money, money." She also noted that "the
scenes in his columns aren't recreated so much as created -- springing from Wolff's
imagination rather than from actual knowledge of events." Calling his writing "a whirlwind of
flourishes and tangents and asides that often stray so far from the central point that you
begin to wonder whether there is a central point.
3) Concerning Wolf´s book about Murdoch, Mr. Murdoch himself e-mailed Mr. Wolff
before releasing,
"I have just read four or five chapters of your book," Mr. Murdoch wrote. "It contains
some extremely damaging misstatements of fact which I will be happy to point out to you if
we could meet. Otherwise I will have no option other than to speak to Random House."
The book was sequently changed before publication.
This has to be a comedy skit starring Dr.Evil. People are saying Trump is not fit but he
is ending ISIS, tax cut is awesome, borders are going to be protected, economy is taking off,
he is actually doing something about North korea and his foreign policy is great. Just the
economy alone is mind boggling.
Trump just concluded a speech at the Nashville Farm Bureau and did it without
teleprompters. To say that he's losing his mind is so far from the truth this guy has
definitely got something wrong with what he's trying to put out. It just doesn't make any
sense and my gut is telling me that Michael Wolff is FOS.
so glad that the mainstream news media is focusing on the issues that matter most to
hard-working Americans---gossip and hearsay. anyway, enjoy your tax cut everyone. If your tax
cut is crumbs, your tax bill is probably crumbs too. BTW, 85% of all taxes are paid by 10% of
Americans and the majority of Americans pay $0 in taxes. have a great day
Christiane Amanpour is a reporter. She's asking stupid questions. She should have done a
better job doing her homework. Example: No President in modern history has ever sent a cease
and desist letter. I mean, even that notion is ridiculous.
The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming! If that doesn't work , cry
"impeachment"....If that does not work, cry "unstable"...OMFG, the world is gonna end!!!
"News" has gone right down the F'ing toilet!!! I can not believe, the brain dead that follows
this dribble! BRAINWASHED USA!!!
This guy is a male version of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and almost as slimy.
Armanpour is one of the most blatantly anti Trump persons you could find. Unlike previous
presidents Trump and his antics have been public knowledge in America since the 1980s. So
this book is bullshit.
Trump firing missiles on the Syrian army under the false pretext that Assad used chemical
weapons against his own people was the same type of lie as the Iraq weapons of mass
destruction lie , Trump did it to appease the Zionists that control the American government ,
Assad is a hero that's fighting terrorism while America openly funded the terrorists in Syria
and named them revolutionaries , numerous times American fighter jets attacked the Syrian
army while in the middle of battle against ISIS, yes ISIS , and admitted to it but called a
mistake , one of those so called American mistakes killed over 90 Syrian army soldiers in one
attack , which gave ISIS the air support they needed to overtake a government airport , has
any American wondered why was Russia condemned by the US for deciding to attack ISIS in Syria
in 2015 ?
shouldn't have the Americans welcomed the help if they were truly fighting ISIS ? why is
it when ISIS invaded Iraq from Syria 2 years ago , the Americans who patrol that border with
drones 24/7 allowed an ISIS convoy of around 1000 vehicles go through without firing 1 bullet
at them ? why does ISIS have thousands of American TOW missiles and no one in America mention
it ? why did America strictly warn Russia not to attack the terrorists that are east of the
Euphrates river making it a safe zone for ISIS to roam free and prepare for suicide bombings
inside Syria and Iraq ? and finally , why did the CIA just give ISIS in Syria mini attack
drones to use against anyone they want ?
of course CNN his got this guy on the air it's made up just like the dossier you could
tell it's fake you should have stuck with Donald Trump pissing on the two hookersdid Donald
Trump sign his yearbook did he sign his yearbook
not to defend Mr. Wolff for we have no real idea of who he is. however , this was said
unwillingly confirming Mr. Wolff had total access . this man said "Gorka revealed that he'd
been asked to comply with the author: "When I met Michael Wolff in Reince Priebus' office,
where he was waiting to talk to Steve Bannon, and after I had been told to also speak to him
for his book, " so peckerwoods how do you like the orange baboon now. oh if you watch fox
white washing of the so called tax over haul. please learn to read so you can find the truth
for your selves. we could tell you that this was a tax cut for the 1% and that in a couple
years your taxes will go up 12% and point out how tax cuts screwed Kansas but its better if
you learn to read and comprehend for your fat lazy drugged abusing selves
This guy is very two faced. If this guy writes in his book that Trump and Melania didn't
want to be president, why did he collude like all the crusty libs think?
Obama calling his wife "Micheal" was Obamas mental state from all the Cocaine he did with
Obamas gay boyfriend Larry Sinclair ever come into question the CNN/MSM pussys protected
Obama
Christiane Amanpour interviewing a guy whose book has been shown to be false on many
levels, this is journalistic integrity at CNN folks, Christine is a JOKE
Look at what MSM interview Wolff and you can compile the list of MSM controlled by color revolution headquaters.
This pile of garbage about Vesselinskaya just suggest that Wolff is a tool of color revolution against Trump. This is what was not
said during the interview.
Michael Wolf: ... If he really consider Trump so unfit and dangerous while you are sitting
on this material for more then a year.
Trump team looks complexly amateurish: Gabriel Sherman, a writer for Vanity Fair, said Thursday that it was "baffling" that Trump's
team gave such access to Wolff, who conducted more than 200 interviews over the course of 18 months from his perch on a West Wing
couch. "[A]ll they needed to do was call Murdoch and he would have said don't cooperate [because] Wolff had written nasty book on
him," Sherman tweeted on Thursday. Wolff
responded to Sherman saying, "I kept waiting for that call to be made."
Yeah, we know it's almost entirely ludicrous exaggerations and outright lies, ... Why believe
Michael Wolff? Well that his the agenda: people who believe him want to remove Trump and for them
"mend justifies the means"
Wolff did exactly what he always does: collect and rehash slasious gossip.
Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... "How many fairly grievous lies had I told?" he wrote in that book. "How many moral lapses had I committed? How many ethical breaches had I fallen into?" Only after Wolff's tech business collapsed in 1997, did he decide to return to a post-collegiate writing career he'd abandoned long before. ..."
For
what it's worth, Wolff is not without journalistic credentials. Like me, he's a former
columnist for New York , where we ovelapped. (We also both attended Vassar at the same
time. Make of all that what you will.) But Wolff's latest work of "journalism" was immediately
marked questionable, and not just by
Sarah Huckabee Sanders ,
Trump's lawyers , and other
presidential puppets .
The Washington Post , hardly a Breitbart subsidiary, ran not
one but
two articles questioning the book's veracity and its author's credibility. The mistakes and
exaggerations the Post catalogued are legion -- Trump asking who John Boehner was,
despite a long history between the two; recounted conversations that simply couldn't have been
witnessed firsthand; impossible financial donations -- but the passage that most raised our
eyebrows comes from the Wolff himself, from a revenge memoir he penned about his time in the
tech business.
"How many fairly grievous lies had I told?" he wrote in that book. "How many moral
lapses had I committed? How many ethical breaches had I fallen into?" Only after Wolff's tech
business collapsed in 1997, did he decide to return to a post-collegiate writing career he'd
abandoned long before.
A reminder for liberals: the enemy of my enemy isn't always my friend. Fake news from the
left doesn't help anybody. And fake news from an opportunist may be even worse.
The book has already destroyed the relationship between Trump and Bannon, who disparaged
Trump's son-in-law and son in the book
But many of the other aides and advisers quoted in the book have disputed Wolff's account,
claiming that he took them out of context or made up stories entirely.
"I can tell you unequivocally is that the allegations and insinuations in this book, which
are a pure work of fiction, are nothing but a pile of trash through and through," White House
adviser Stephen Miller said on CNN on Sunday.
Trump's lawyers sent a cease-and-desist letter to Wolff's publisher last week, but the
publisher ended up moving the release date up to Friday. The book is now a best seller.
Attorneys for Wolff's publisher fired back at Trump's attorneys on Monday, calling the legal
threats against the author "a gross violation of the First Amendment" and saying that
publication of the book would continue.
Wolff's lawyer Elizabeth McNamara said Wolff had been permitted "extraordinary access" to
the Trump campaign and White House between May of 2016 and October of 2017 and that the more
than 200 interviews with Trump and members of his inner circle informed Wolff's
reporting.
"We have no reason to doubt -- and your letter provides no reason to change this conclusion
-- that Mr. Wolff's book is an accurate report on events of vital public importance," McNamara
wrote. "Mr. Trump is the president of the United States, with the 'bully pulpit' at his
disposal. To the extent he disputes any statement in the book, he has the largest platform in
the world to challenge it."
"He is needy and amoral enough to just, you know, insult people for attention" -- Gawker
"Long a media provocateur Wolff has optimized his barbed bitching for the Internet" -- New York Magazine
How WH allowed such an amoral and dangerous person to wander around is completely unexplainable. Were was the
generals?
Notable quotes:
"... Wolff's proximity to power has been one of the common threads throughout his professional life. In "The Man Who Owns the News," Wolff was said to have had "unprecedented access to Rupert Murdoch himself, and his associates and family." ..."
"... For "Fire and Fury," Wolff was a fly on the wall in the White House throughout the early, tumultuous months of the Trump presidency. The book, and its bombshell quotes from former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, has roiled the administration. ..."
"... "Possibly the bitchiest media bigfoot writing today," read one of the blurbs. Wolff did not respond to CNN's request for comment. ..."
"... Wolff's reporting has drawn criticism, too. In a review of the Murdoch biography, the late New York Times media critic David Carr wrote that "one of the problems with Wolff's omniscience is that while he may know all, he gets some of it wrong." ..."
For coastal denizens operating in the worlds of media, business and politics, he needs no introduction. But much of the country,
poring over juicy excerpts from his tell-all book about the Trump presidency, may be learning about Michael Wolff for the first time.
The book, "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," has consumed all of the oxygen of the current news cycle with its arresting
details about the chaos and drama surrounding President Donald Trump. Due to hit shelves next week, "Fire and Fury"
skyrocketed
from 48,449 to number one on Amazon's best-selling books list on Wednesday, forcing publisher Henry Holt & Company to accelerate
its rollout plan.
It isn't Wolff's first page-turner on a high-profile subject. In 2008, he offered up "The Man Who Owns the News," a biography
of the billionaire conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch.
But "Fire and Fury" is poised to become the most commercially successful book -- and perhaps one of the defining elements -- of
Wolff's long and polarizing career.
Wolff, 64, is a fixture of New York media and a regular of the cocktail party circuit. He has most recently been a columnist and
media critic for USA Today and The Hollywood Reporter, and before that Vanity Fair. In 2010, Wolff took over as editor of Adweek
but lasted about a year due to
reported friction
with ownership. He has also written for New York Magazine and The Guardian.
Wolff's proximity to power has been one of the common threads throughout his professional life. In "The Man Who Owns the News,"
Wolff was said to have had "unprecedented access to Rupert Murdoch himself, and his associates and family."
For "Fire and Fury," Wolff was a fly on the wall in the White House throughout the early, tumultuous months of the Trump presidency.
The book, and its bombshell quotes from former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, has roiled the administration.
Gabriel Sherman, a writer for Vanity Fair, said Thursday that it was "baffling" that Trump's team gave such access to Wolff, who
conducted more than 200 interviews over the course of 18 months from his perch on a West Wing couch.
"[A]ll they needed to do was call Murdoch and he would have said don't cooperate [because] Wolff had written nasty book on him,"
Sherman tweeted on Thursday. Wolff responded
to Sherman saying, "I kept waiting for that call to be made."
A 2013 television advertising campaign for USA Today struck a similar note.
"Read Michael Wolff," the ad said, "and thank your lucky stars he's not writing about you."
Wolff isn't universally celebrated, or beloved. In a critique of "Fire and Fury" on Wednesday, Splinter's David Uberti
wrote that Wolff would likely land
a top seed in a "March Madness-style bracket to find the most loathed man in media."
For years, Wolff was a favorite punching bag of the now-shuttered website Gawker.
Wolff attracts some of those insults with an abrasive personality. A cursory scan of his Twitter feed reveals pugnaciousness and
arrogance; his columns are often laced with invective.
He also seems to revel in the hatred. The dust jacket of Wolff's 2015 book "Television is the New Television" showcased the vitriol
he's drawn over the years, not the critical acclaim.
"Possibly the bitchiest media bigfoot writing today," read one of the blurbs. Wolff did not respond to CNN's request for comment.
Wolff's reporting has drawn criticism, too. In a review of the Murdoch biography, the late New York Times media critic David Carr
wrote that "one of the problems with Wolff's omniscience is that while he may know all, he gets some of it wrong."
Carr noted a pair of errors in the book, including Wolff's assertion that the Times had nixed a series after Murdoch's News Corp
had attacked the paper.
Wolff's reporting is now being challenged by Trump, whose lawyer has sent
a cease
and desist letter to Wolff over purportedly "false/baseless statements" about the president.
For some, like Poynter's media columnist Jim Warren, it's a match made in media heaven. "Donald Trump and Michael Wolff deserve one another," Warren wrote Thursday. "They're like conjoined twins tied at the ego."
"Wolff's book on Murdoch fueled similar questions about his reporting practices. "Like the
man he writes about, Wolff is a gossip who is very skilled at extracting information and sensing
weakness," the late media writer David Carr wrote in a New York Times review of
the book in 2008."
In her 2004 New Republic profile of Wolff, Michelle Cottle wrote, "Wolff is the
quintessential New York creation, fixated on culture, style, buzz, and money, money,
money."
"For Wolff, nothing is more erotic than a multibillionaire," she wrote. If true, what could
be more intriguing for Wolff than writing about a billionaire's White House?
Wolff probably has some powerful sponsors. It is impossible that second rate sleasy gossip columnist took in the POTUS without
powerful sponsor. It would be interesing to analyse who granted him the access to WH. Some staffers reported that calls they
recieved the calls to meets with Wollf from outside WH.
Miller definition of the author and book is very apt: a "grotesque work of fiction" and a "pile of trash" written by a
"garbage author."
Notable quotes:
"... Miller slammed the book during his CNN interview, calling it a "grotesque work of fiction" and a "pile of trash" written by a "garbage author." ..."
"... CIA Director Mike Pompeo also rejected an allegation in the book that the president does not read. "This president reads material that we provide to him. He listens closely to his daily briefing," Pompeo said during an interview on "Fox News Sunday." ..."
"... Wolff's book included a quote attributed to White House chief economic adviser Gary Cohn, in which the administration aide claims Trump will not read policy papers and memos. ..."
Miller
slammed the book during his CNN interview, calling it a "grotesque work of fiction" and a
"pile of trash" written by a "garbage author."
But the interview took a turn when Miller began to spar with Tapper over CNN's coverage of
the Trump White House. After several minutes, Tapper cut off the interview, telling Miller he
was not answering his questions.
... ... ...
CIA Director Mike Pompeo also rejected an allegation in the book that the president does not
read. "This president reads material that we provide to him. He listens closely to his daily
briefing," Pompeo said during an interview on "Fox News Sunday."
"This president is an avid consumer of the work product that our team at the CIA produces
and we do our best to convey that to him every day," he continued.
Wolff's book included a quote attributed to White House chief economic adviser Gary
Cohn, in which the administration aide claims Trump will not read policy papers and
memos.
"... Unless we had a preexisting relationship, I didn't trust any journalist. And if you came from an outlet that belonged to what President Trump calls #FakeNews, I really wasn't interested in becoming your friend. To those few persistent journalists from news organs like the Washington Post who wouldn't give up, I was upfront: Sorry, I don't do "deep background" and I'm using my phone to record this conversation. ..."
"... First, Wolff is a partisan self-promoter with credibility issues the likes of which we haven't seen in a very long time. We are used to Washington being divided, but the contents of this politically-motivated publication are so obviously false that the "swamp" has descended to a new unimaginable low with its release. ..."
"... Wolff actually admits on page 10 of his prologue that he cannot verify anything that he details in his book, and that what he has provided is a "notional truth," the merits of which the reader will have to decide upon by themselves. With this one statement, Wolff has done more to illuminate the political left writ large than any right-wing op-ed writer ever could. ..."
"... For Wolff and all the Trump haters who buy his book and endorse what is, in practice, a smear campaign, the philosophy is crystal clear: Facts don't matter. It's the narrative that is king. Trump must be incompetent or mentally unwell because, well, we want him to be. "Notional truth" is another phrase for my ideological "reality," a phrase that George Orwell would have recognized instantly. ..."
"... Lastly, and most important, by tying together a tissue of lies and half-truths which will progressively be debunked in the coming days and weeks, the author of "Fire and Fury" will in fact strengthen the position of President Trump and reinforce the public's already remarkably high distrust of the media. ..."
"... As he does so, I would like to remind my colleagues still inside the White House: You don't have to be friends with each and every journalist who seeks you out. But if you do engage, remember that smartphones make excellent recording devices. ..."
"... Sebastian Gorka Sebastian Lukacs Gorka Gorka contracted to deliver Heritage Foundation speeches Sebastian Gorka joins Fox News as contributor Gorka: NYC attack reinforces president's work on reforming immigration MORE Ph.D. is the author of the New York Times bestseller " ..."
"... Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War ..."
"... " and former deputy assistant and strategist to President Trump. Follow him on Twitter ..."
When I worked in the White House, I was viewed as strange by many of my colleagues on
Sean Spicer 's press team. Although, as a deputy assistant
to President Trump, I could regularly
be seen on the major news networks, standing on the North Lawn of the White House and
discussing some aspect of the administration's latest policy, I maintained a rather different
relationship with the press than all of my other politically-appointed colleagues.
Unless we had a preexisting relationship, I didn't trust any journalist. And if you came
from an outlet that belonged to what President Trump calls #FakeNews, I really wasn't
interested in becoming your friend. To those few persistent journalists from news organs like
the Washington Post who wouldn't give up, I was upfront: Sorry, I don't do "deep background"
and I'm using my phone to record this conversation.
As a result, you'd never see Jim Acosta coming out of my office or
Maggie Haberman buying me an espresso at Peet's around the corner from the West Wing. So, when I met Michael Wolff in Reince Priebus ' office, where he was waiting to
talk to Steve
Bannon, and after I had been told to also
speak to him for his book, my attitude was polite but firm: "Thanks but no thanks." Our brief
encounter reinforced my gut feeling that this oleaginous scribe had no interest in being fair
and unbiased.
Now, the chattering classes are gripped in an hysterical fever over Wolff's tell-all book,
"Fire and Fury," with Wolff actually saying that its
publication will bring down the duly-elected president of the United States. I refuse to buy the book of a man who so avowedly holds what, in a previous age, we would
have called treasonous goals, but I have read the publicly released excerpts and therefore feel
that we can all draw some practical conclusions. First, Wolff is a partisan self-promoter with credibility issues the likes of which we
haven't seen in a very long time. We are used to Washington being divided, but the contents of
this politically-motivated publication are so obviously false that the "swamp" has descended to
a new unimaginable low with its release.
Not only is it replete with simple "mistakes," such as President Trump having no idea who
John Boehner is when they were previously golfing
partners, it is built upon assertions that go counter to all that we know about the
president. The most obvious of these is that a man whose reputation for 50 years has been defined
around the concept of winning, at everything he set out to do, had no intention of winning the
election to the highest office in the land. (An accusation that, ironically and critically, undermines an additional outrageous
assertion that the book is being used to support, that there was in fact "collusion" between
team Trump and the Russian government. What is the logic of conspiring with Moscow in an
election, if you never intended to win?)
Second, at a time when the credibility of the inappropriately termed "mainstream" media is
in tatters, its leading lights and editorial masters are doubling down on their hysterical
counterfactual coverage instead of pausing to examine just how professionally and morally
bankrupt they have become and what can be done about rebuilding their reputations.
Wolff actually admits on page 10 of his prologue that he cannot verify anything that he
details in his book, and that what he has provided is a "notional truth," the merits of which
the reader will have to decide upon by themselves. With this one statement, Wolff has done more
to illuminate the political left writ large than any right-wing op-ed writer ever could.
For Wolff and all the Trump haters who buy his book and endorse what is, in practice, a
smear campaign, the philosophy is crystal clear: Facts don't matter. It's the narrative that is
king. Trump must be incompetent or mentally unwell because, well, we want him to be. "Notional
truth" is another phrase for my ideological "reality," a phrase that George Orwell would have
recognized instantly.
Lastly, and most important, by tying together a tissue of lies and half-truths which will
progressively be debunked in the coming days and weeks, the author of "Fire and Fury" will in
fact strengthen the position of President Trump and reinforce the public's already remarkably
high distrust of the media.
When CNN devotes almost all of its domestic coverage to the absurd accusations in the book,
and Jake Tapper shuts down White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller on live television,
while the Dow breaks 25,000 and young protesters are being killed on the streets of Iran, then
the name #FakeNews is no longer just a rhetorical device.
We are just one week into 2018, yet it is clear that those who expected Hillary Clinton to win the
presidential election still do not fully comprehend what happened in America on Nov. 8, 2016.
This especially includes the majority of the American press. Their willful blindness and
intransigence will empower President Trump, as he proceeds to implement the "Make America Great
Again" agenda.
As he does so, I would like to remind my colleagues still inside the White House: You don't
have to be friends with each and every journalist who seeks you out. But if you do engage,
remember that smartphones make excellent recording devices.
The leftist nest of vipers loves this distraction because it keeps us from concentrating on
the 2018 primaries, our President's goals to build the wall, stopping the cultural changes to
our country via illegal immigration and refugees, i.e, DACA, the need for revitalized
infrastructure and so much more
Primaries are the most important
elections we have , and they start throughout the country in early March for the 2018
elections. We need to support the conservative candidates in this important election.
Way too much work needs to be done to waste time with this goofy Wolff book nonsense. The
Democrats lost, the people have spoken. The reason Democrats were defeated across the board in
2016 is their propensity towards lies and their lack of substance beyond anything but mindless
violence, identity politics, worship of jihad, abortion on demand, and the planned decimation
of U.S. sovereignty, and the Wolff book is just more of the same.
Since the 2016 election rejection, the Democrats have doubled down on each and every one of
these things and blocked the will of the American people. They will continue to slap the U.S.
middle class in the face and they will continue to lose. Our efforts need to be focused on
rebuilding our government and helping our President pass the legislation he campaigned on.
The populist hero to conservatives has now fallen out of favor with most conservatives, and
we're all sad about it, and we don't even know if any of this garbage is true, but Bannon
needed to immediately deny Wolff's statements and in not doing so, he is destroying his own
reputation.
Steve has made inflammatory claims and the President's lawyers have told him to cease and
desist. It is a real distraction because finally, after a long stonewall, we are going to find
the truth about the infamous dossier. Was it used as an excuse for domestic spying on the Trump
campaign? It sure looks like it.
Was it the reason the FBI began the investigation in the first place? Looks like it. Don't
forget that dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton, and it contains scurrilous and fake
material that the President has described as a pile of garbage. Now we'll get the documents
that will reveal how the FBI and Justice Department used that dossier. This is political
dynamite, and far more important than Bannon's provocations.
Before the election, the Clinton team paid millions of dollars to Fusion GPS. They were
looking for dirt on Trump. Fusion comes up with a pack of lies called the dossier and created
by British spy, Christopher Steele. They release it to the media. And it gets worse. The FBI
got that dossier and what did they make of it pack of lies, and did they use it to spy on the
Trump campaign? Yes! Is this how Russia, Russia, Russia got started? We're going to find
out.
This week the establishment media is all over Bannon's comments, and it is a distraction.
The real story is about the cabal of the Obama supporters buried in the FBI and the Justice
Department who interfered with a presidential election. Hats off to the handful of Republicans
who have pushed to get to the truth. It's not about Trump and Russia, it's about a Deep State
conspiracy.
The entire Wolff book is nothing but made up allegations to distract us from our goals and
the President's campaign promises. Discard it and move on.
On Monday's broadcast of MSNBC's "Morning Joe," "Fire and Fury" author Michael Wolff stated
that everyone closest to President Trump believes there is "something fundamentally wrong" with
the president and they stay in the White House because they are "scared" of what the
president's capable of and believe they have a responsibility to the country to stay in.
Wolff said, "Everybody in this White House, and I keep saying this, 100%, because it is 100%
of the people closest to the president, to Donald Trump. believe that there is something wrong
here, something fundamentally wrong, something that scares them. As a matter of fact, they went
from -- if there was -- if there is any reason they stay in the White House now, it's because
they are scared. They believe they have a responsibility to the American people."
Stephen K. Bannon, executive chair of Breitbart News and former White House chief
strategist, issued the following statement on Sunday:
"Donald Trump, Jr. is both a patriot and a good man. He has been relentless in his
advocacy for his father and the agenda that has helped turn our country around.
"My support is also unwavering for the president and his agenda -- as I have shown daily
in my national radio broadcasts, on the pages of Breitbart News and in speeches and
appearances from Tokyo and Hong Kong to Arizona and Alabama. President Trump was the only
candidate that could have taken on and defeated the Clinton apparatus. I am the only person
to date to conduct a global effort to preach the message of Trump and Trump_vs_deep_state; and remain
ready to stand in the breach for this president's efforts to make America great again.
"My comments about the meeting with Russian nationals came from my life experiences as a
Naval officer stationed aboard a destroyer whose main mission was to hunt Soviet submarines
to my time at the Pentagon during the Reagan years when our focus was the defeat of 'the evil
empire' and to making films about Reagan's war against the Soviets and Hillary Clinton's
involvement in selling uranium to them.
"My comments were aimed at Paul Manafort, a seasoned campaign professional with experience
and knowledge of how the Russians operate. He should have known they are duplicitous, cunning
and not our friends. To reiterate, those comments were not aimed at Don Jr.
"Everything I have to say about the ridiculous nature of the Russian 'collusion'
investigation I said on my 60 Minutes interview. There was no collusion and the investigation
is a witch hunt.
"I regret that my delay in responding to the inaccurate reporting regarding Don Jr has
diverted attention from the president's historical accomplishments in the first year of his
presidency."
President Trump's first press secretary speaks out on "GMA" about the salacious details in "Fire and Fury" and the fallout between
President Trump and Steve Bannon.
"... Robert Delaney and Zhenhua Lu write at the South China Morning Post that Steve Bannon identified China as the greatest challenge to the United States while serving as Donald Trump's Chief Strategist: ..."
"... Read the rest of the story at the South China Morning Post . ..."
Robert Delaney and Zhenhua Lu write at the South China Morning Post that Steve Bannon
identified China as the greatest challenge to the United States while serving as Donald Trump's
Chief Strategist:
An "all-encompassing" war with China was one of the earliest objectives of President
Donald Trump's chief strategist, Steve Bannon, according to Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump
White House, a controversial, behind-the-scenes-account of the US leader's first year in
office.
"China is where Nazi Germany was in 1929 to 1930," Wolff quoted Bannon as saying. "The
Chinese, like the Germans, are the most rational people in the world, until they're not. And
they're gonna flip like Germany in the 'thirties. You're going to have a hypernationalist
state, and once that happens, you can't put the genie back in the bottle."
Although Bannon left his White House role in August, Washington is on the verge of a trade
war with Beijing, a path that aligns with Wolff's account of Bannon's over-arching foreign
policy goal: conflict with China. Trump ordered investigations into China's trade and
investment policies, moves which may result in punitive action against Chinese goods and
investors.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders held a Press Briefing today 1/4/2018 where she answer questions on Michael
Wolff's Trump Book and trump's feud with Steve Bannon after he said his Admistration is in Chaos on wolff's book, on this press briefing
Sarah Sanders was also asked about Trump's Mental Fitness to Serve as Commander in Chief 1/4/2018
Sarah Sanders press briefing on president Donald Trump, Steve Bannon and Michael Wolff's book this is the latest on trump's white
house press briefings other current events and top stories today are Wolff's book that reveals the Trump's white house is in a chaotic
state these are the latest breaking news today January 4, 2018
CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday cut off a contentious interview with White House senior adviser
Stephen Miller, as the two sparred about President Trump and the news network. Miller slammed
the network over a mistake it made last year in a report about the Russia investigation and
accused CNN of not covering issues he said are important to Americans.
"You have 24 hours a day of anti-Trump material and you're not going to give three minutes
for the American people to hear the real experience of Donald Trump?" Miller asked.
What kind of dystopian world do we live where a MSM presenter can't cope with a truth
challenge. I'm 60 and in all my life I could never have imagined such blatant propaganda and
bias as we are living through now. This is truly scary stuff.
Should probably be named LIAR & FURY. Available
Fire_and_Fury_-_Michael_Wolff.pdf -
Google Drive but it not worth the electron waited on its download. This is just a gossip comumnist trying to make quick buck
out of hate of Trump by Clinton wing of the Democratic Party
the real question is who is standing behind this gossip columnist. We now know who is standing behind Steele dossier. Probably
the same people.
Notable quotes:
"... Since, somewhat ironically, WikiLeaks picked a google drive to host the leaked pdf, it will unlikely remain available for an extended period, as it would mean substantial lost revenue for book published Henry Holt and Company. So for those who wish to read what all the hoople is about - for free - they are advised to do so sooner rather than later. ..."
"... Not worth the electricity to download. btw, here is the unedited Tapper cut off interview with Trump Adviser Miller https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-OLYswSY0I ..."
"... That's some free shit I am not wasting my time on. How about a free pdf As We Go Marching by John T Flynn which describes the tactics used by Mussolini and how eerily similar they are to vicious antifa and Hillary supporters today: ..."
"... Libtards will continue to buy the book and pound it on the table demanding impeachment nullification of the election so the Queen witch can take the throne. ..."
"... . The disrespect the media has for our country and its institutions and offices is beyond the beyond. They show their true colors... destroyers, traitors, seditionists. ..."
"... What they assert as being "freedom of speech" is a very very low harmonic of the actual concept. Out of control, evil children. The nation should boycott the news media until they all collapse and go away. They are a major obstacle to the forward progress of our nation. ..."
"... Wolff really shouldn't miss the money, cuz it was all done out of his love of country, right? His altruistic concern for our democracy, and all that MSM bull shit, right? And who really needs all their income anyway, it's cool to give it away to Team Blue, right? Shouldn't miss the cash whatsoever. ..."
Considering that Wikileaks made its name by leaking confidential and/or hard to find documents and information, and also considering
the reversal in the Trump administration vis-a-vis Julian Assange, whom it first lauded only to threaten with incarceration in recent
months, it is perhaps not surprising that moments ago the official Wikileaks twitter account published Michael Wolff's controversial
- and largely sold out - book, "Fire and Fury" in pdf format.
Since, somewhat ironically, WikiLeaks picked a google drive to host the leaked pdf, it will unlikely remain available for an extended
period, as it would mean substantial lost revenue for book published Henry Holt and Company. So for those who wish to read what all
the hoople is about - for free - they are advised to do so sooner rather than later.
Here's Open VPN, it creates a VPN connection to whatever server you choose. Pick one from a country that does not cooperate
with the US government's surveillance apparatus: Russia, China, Iran are good choices. Then whatever IP that GOOGLE (jesus fucking
christ people) gets won't be your IP but some IP abroad they can't chase down.
OK, I'll play along. Let's say I am a Deep State agent. What could I possibly aim to achieve by telling people not to download
a book that we all know is a pack of lies and that few if any here have any real interest in reading? Isn't that the exact opposite
of what the Deep State wanted when they produced the book?
Reagan was suffering from Altziemers Disease for much of his second term. I was pissed off when he kept saying "I don't recall"
when asked about details of the Iran/Contra/Ollie North fiasco. I remember thinking, "Just what DO you recall, Mr. President?"
But it turned out he wasn't lying or covering for anybody. He honestly couldn't recall. I think at that point Vice President
George H.W. Bush was pretty much running the administration.
For one thing, presidents don't need to be chief bureaucrats with knowledge of all the details. Reagan knew how to manage from
the top, and was rather successful in his long career. Carter and Clinton were known for their detailed management style, and
... enough said.
The quiet talk of Reagan's Alzheimer's started when he made moves to radically reduce nuclear weapons and put the Cold War
firmly in the past. Anyone who doesn't want the world in a constant state of warfare must be a little crazy.
After reading the Reagan Diaries, which he kept from day one until the end, I didn't see a hint of early AD, and I'm quite
familiar with the disease.
And finally, as scandals go, by today's standard, Iran-Contra doesn't rate a 1 on a ten point scale. What Obama did on a routine
basis would put that 'scandal' to shame.
Look, he had hypoxic brain injury from the gunshot he took from a leftist. His cognitive function wasn't the same after that.
Stop blaming Alzheimer's disease.
Regan was pushed to his limit but he did so much that is unknown to save us. He ended up working for them but continued to
work for us behind the scenes in so many ways. I lived in DC at the time and know behind the curtain
That's some free shit I am not wasting my time on. How about a free pdf As We Go Marching by John T Flynn which
describes the tactics used by Mussolini and how eerily similar they are to vicious antifa and Hillary supporters today:
More odd than bold, for Wikileaks to do such a move. It doesn't make much sense considering the book would eventually be available
for free at a number of pirate sites. A move like this can only damage the credibility they have with some of their fans. Maybe
WL's twitter was hacked?
Apparently the Quota was exceeded so you cannot direct save it to PDF from google drive. Go to the end (Page 327) ... page
back up to page 1. Print to PDF then works like the charm.
Some things never change... Heres an eye opening film I just ran up on, my grand father grew up on one of these farms, no wonder
he was always angry or sad....never very happy.
All slaves. Not much different in 2018. The "media" would never do this kind of story now.
1960: "Harvest of Shame" https://hooktube.com/watch?v=yJTVF_dya7E
1960's "Harvest of Shame," in which Edward R. Murrow exposed the plight of America's farm workers.
Libtards will continue to buy the book and pound it on the table demanding impeachment nullification of the election so
the Queen witch can take the throne.
Back in the good old days a shill whore like Wolff would've been beheaded and his head put on a pike outside the White House.
The disrespect the media has for our country and its institutions and offices is beyond the beyond. They show their true colors...
destroyers, traitors, seditionists.
What they assert as being "freedom of speech" is a very very low harmonic of the actual concept. Out of control, evil children.
The nation should boycott the news media until they all collapse and go away. They are a major obstacle to the forward progress
of our nation.
Wolff really shouldn't miss the money, cuz it was all done out of his love of country, right? His altruistic concern for
our democracy, and all that MSM bull shit, right? And who really needs all their income anyway, it's cool to give it away to Team
Blue, right? Shouldn't miss the cash whatsoever.
If you have Windows, just print-to-pdf by selecting the printer "Microsoft Print to PDF" rather than your ink printer. You
then have the pdf. Copy it to a Kindle or read on your pc.
Kuchner was actually portrayed pretty negatively, as a loser douche bag who is afraid of his father and had nothing going until
he married Ivanka. I don't think anyone in that book has been portrayed in a sympathetic way except maybe Ivanka and Melania.
And that is not flattering, just sympathetic.
Even free, I have no interest. You'd have to pay me to read this crap & even then, it'd have to be worth my time or I wouldn't
do it.
Wolff himself said some info in it is from sources while some is what HE BELIEVES to be true...in other words, his opinion.
No way to quantify what some means in either case...could be 5% sources and 95% what HE BELIEVES to be true for all we know.
Why download any uber liberal anti-American drivel, even if it's free? I don't get it....
This was a mistake by wikileaks. Wikileaks should have stayed on path to being a portal to liberate information, and stayed
neutral with respect to how it was weaponized. Now they're showing their partisanship, which makes it easier to remove them from
the playing field IMO, e.g. as part of a side deal between Trump and Dems.
I think Wiki thinks you should read it and judge for yourself.
If folks are going to say this book is reason to take down this president, then everyone should have a look.
Wikileaks gets accused of being partisan (supporting Trump) when they say the Russians did not provide the leaked info. Publishing
this looks neutral to me.
Very sleazy gossip columnist. Looks like questing fitness of the President of the essence of
the book. Why nobody asked Trump if this guy presence is authorized.
Notable quotes:
"... Michael Wollf is a parasite.............human garbage......some one saw him running for the garbage truck "am I too late for the garbage" the men said no "jump in" ..."
Fake news. Meanwhile, Obama goes unprosecuted for his war crimes.
Michael McIntyre, 2 days ago
Michael Wollf is a parasite.............human garbage......some one saw him running for
the garbage truck "am I too late for the garbage" the men said no "jump in"
Peter Rodriguez III , 1 day ago
So basically people,
He walked into the White House with his mind already made up.
Spoke to people who he claims speak to Trump on a "minute to minute basis" trying to justify
his views. Comes out with essentially an anti trump book. All while spending a TOTAL of 3 or
less hours just in the presence of the president, without direct interaction.
Railroads Across Maine, 2 days ago (edited)
This guy is a joke just like his book. Looking forward to seeing the lawsuit results due
to slandering a president with a bunch of lies, and smear tactics. This so called author is
not only unethical, but very stupid as well. People that buy this book are going to be
funding trump in the end! Brilliant!
Dennis Gerald, 2 days ago
Dirt bag Bannon campaigning for Mueller lmao!
Peter Jansen
The DNC and the deep state started the 2020 election campaign already at the election night - everything is planned to the
last detail to win 2020, this book is part of a larger fabricated propaganda in the longest and most dirty election campaign
ever seen.
Too little, too late. Also Bannon by demonizing Russians has shown that his is a dangerous warmonger. And a weak
politician.
Notable quotes:
"... Bannon added that his comments to Wolff were "aimed at Paul Manafort," the former Trump campaign manager who has been charged as part of an investigation into possible collusion between the Russian government and members of Trump's team. Manafort was also at the 2016 Trump Tower meeting. Manafort, Bannon said, "should have known how the Russians operate. He should have known they are duplicitous, cunning and not our friends. ..."
"... Bannon released the statement after a three-day barrage of criticism from Trump and his allies. The president dubbed Bannon "Sloppy Steve." Bannon's statement also followed a CNN appearance on Sunday by Stephen Miller, the president's senior policy adviser and former Bannon ally, who eviscerated his comments to Wolff as "grotesque." ..."
The former White House aide said Donald Trump Jr. is a "patriot and a good man."
Steve Bannon backpedaled on comments to journalist Michael Wolff, whose explosive new book
sparked
a backlash against the former top Donald Trump aide over his remarks about a meeting at
Trump Tower in June 2016. According to the book, released a week early due to high demand, the
former White House strategist called the infamous meeting in New York between Donald Trump Jr.
and Russian operatives at Trump Tower "treasonous."
In a
statement to Axios on Sunday, Bannon heaped praise on Trump and his agenda, and called Don
Jr. a "patriot and a good man." "My comments about the meeting with Russian nationals came from
my life experiences as a Naval officer stationed aboard a destroyer whose main mission was to
hunt Soviet submarines to my time at the Pentagon during the Reagan years when our focus was
the defeat of 'the evil empire' and to making films about Reagan's war against the Soviets and
Hillary Clinton's involvement in selling uranium to them, " Bannon said in the statement.
Bannon
added that his comments to Wolff were "aimed at Paul Manafort," the former Trump campaign
manager who has been charged as part of an investigation into possible collusion between the
Russian government and members of Trump's team. Manafort was also at the 2016 Trump Tower
meeting. Manafort, Bannon said, "should have known how the Russians operate. He should have
known they are duplicitous, cunning and not our friends.
To reiterate, those comments (about
the meeting with the Russians) were not aimed at Don Jr." In the statement, Bannon again denied
that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. And though he did not deny any of the remarks
that were attributed to him in the book, Bannon said he regretted "that my delay in responding
to the inaccurate reporting regarding Don Jr has diverted attention from the president's
historical accomplishments in the first year of his presidency."
Bannon released the statement
after a three-day barrage of criticism from Trump and his allies. The president dubbed Bannon
"Sloppy Steve." Bannon's statement also followed a CNN appearance on Sunday by Stephen Miller,
the president's senior policy adviser and former Bannon ally, who eviscerated his comments to
Wolff as "grotesque."
Earlier Sunday, Trump railed about what he called Wolff's "Fake Book" on
Twitter:
What a wonderfully clear and uncompromising analysis of the current political situation in
the US. And done by two of the sharpest and most charismatic truth-telling figures of the
news landscape! Thank you both, it's such a pleasure to listen to you. I pray to our God that
2018 will be the year that sees the beginning of the swamp draining! God bless you both and
God bless America!
Take all of the clintons money, and don't let them leave the country. And never hold any
government position. And life probation and monitoring on their bank funds from their minimum
wage job. That would probably be the worst thing they could be made to experience. Reduced to
commoners.
I'm concerned, irrationally, about how much Stone is shining right now, as a person. Like
fire burning brightest before the light goes out. Christopher Lee was the same way; embraced
the youth culture, wore a funny hat, and did awesome things then died. I'm selfishly
desperate for Stone to stay alive and remain a champion in this fight.
Roger Stone continually blames Bannon as the one who brought globalist McMaster into the
Trump admin. Yet McMaster was the reason Bannon was booted out, because the two of them did
not agree on the agenda & did not get along. Doesn't make sense.
Sessions is a scum! He's a traitor, who needs to be brought up on charges. An act that
would kill two birds with one stone! Prove the Russian Wikileaks allocations fraudulent, and
get Sessions fired. Inturn getting us, an honest new AG!... Preferably one willing to do his
job!
In foreign coverage, where is Guardian you also probably can find MI6. In other words they dig under trump. and it might be interesting
to analyze how this reporter got such a broad access. Aren't recorders prohibited in WH grounds?
The January 3 rd edition of the British newspaper Guardianopens with "explosive revelations". Michael Wolff interviews
Steve Bannon about the latter's book "Fire and Fury: inside the Trump White House" , which calls Donald Jr's (Trump's first
born son) meetings with the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya "treasonous" and "unpatriotic" .
Most media stop there. Most liberals, fueled by their hatred towards Donald Trump, also stop there and take it to Twitter because
that's how far their political slacktivism can go. Then Trump replied on the wave of emotions and everything went nuclear. Since
everyone seems to be too emotional not only to read through the lines, but actually to simply read the lines, we'll offer some strategic
analysis and put everything into context.
Let's start with Bannon's quotes: "Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I happen
to think it's all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately. ( )You realise where this is going. This is all about money
laundering. Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump
goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr and Jared Kushner It's as plain as a hair on your face."
If you want to know what Bannon thinks, you either ask him or read Breitbart, which presents the same revelations with a rather
different focus , ignoring Donald Jr. while highlighting Kushner's role.
A second article on the topic targets the power couple Jared and his wife Ivanka.
Most importantly, the first article on the home page, highlighted in capital letters, is again about Jared Kushner. The article
is penned by Adam Shaw, who happens to be one of Bannon's most trusted writers, and lists essentially everything that's wrong with
Kushner, suggesting what Trump should do with him.
The opening is nothing short of an insult, underscoring how the husband of Trump's daughter Ivanka appeared to the US troops
in Iraq: under the flak jacket, Jared sported his typical rich-boy blazer and khakis, because that's all he is about and he can't
renounce his materialistic symbols not even when on a military trip. As such, in the eyes of Bannon, Jared Kushner is nothing
but a spoilt heir, who never had a real job in his life, owes everything he has to his family's wealth and connections and is exclusively
preoccupied with his own lavish lifestyle; he's not fit to understand the problems of marines overseas, nor the middle-class American,
who would be the main beneficial of Bannon's economic nationalist platform.
... ... ...
The second and third paragraph present how Kushner is not a conservative at all, but a Democratic mole in the Trump administration,
for his support for open borders immigration policies and LGBT causes; he's also a fountain of bad advice, as allegedly Trump himself
called him.
The fourth to sixth paragraphs are a hint of Donald Trump himself: if Mueller's special counsel is ever going to find anything,
it'll be Kushner, therefore Trump should get rid of him as soon as possible. Kushner is involved in too many shady deals like those
in real estate and very much like the Democrat mole he is, he'll repeat the same lax behaviour Hillary had in her use of non secure
servers to handle confidential emails.
The last one highlights Kushner's alleged poor understanding of geopolitics.
In conclusion, for Breitbart and therefore Bannon, Kushner is a spoilt rich heir, with no real life skills whatsoever that could
be useful to the Trump presidency, a source of bad advice, detached from the real problems afflicting middle America, focusing on
frivolous issues like LGBT or his preppy shoes, a person who could be used to incriminateTrump. He's the perfect representative of
the out of touch globalist elites and their policies that Trump ran against and won. If Trump wants to achieve anything with his
presidency, Kushner must go. Otherwise Kushner will destroy the Trump presidency and drag Trump down with him.
Paragraph three also has a hint for Kushner and Ivanka themselves: leave of your own will.
Fortunately for them, Trump has taken the assault on them as a declaration of war against himself. He fired back at Bannon the
same way he fires back and forth with Kim-Jong-Un, had already got his lawyers involved and didn't get the message at all. Bannon's
New Year's first shot against Kushner backfired and ended up hitting Trump.
"... This book doesn't ring true and it doesn't serve a purpose. It's like listening to Alex Jones or reading National Enquirer on steroids, just gleeful childish destruction. Wolff writing is the journalistic equivalent of the straw-men he portrays. ..."
Only a few pages in and I will probably stop reading this book. I caught a factual error
that shouldnt have been missed. Wolff states that Boehner was ousted by the Tea Party in
2011. Not true. He resigned frustrated by the Tea Party in 2015. When you write a book about
the president, especially one who constantly disparages the press for being wrong, you better
damn well be meticulous. Shame on the author and the publisher for giving Trump and his
followers an opening to further call the press fake.
This book is nothing more than a rehashing of publicly available information about the
Trump administration with a few shock quotes thrown in to get headlines and sell the book.
I'm neither a never-Trumper nor am I a supporter, and was hoping to gain some insight through
Wolff's supposedly exclusive access. Instead, there is hardly anything in this book that we
didn't already know. I suppose there is some value in hashing it all together in one place,
but not a lot. In addition, it's very poorly written. Wolff uses hip-hop slang words like
"dis" and pens confusing sentences like: "She and Jared, or Jared, but by inference she too,
were in effect the real chief of staff-or certainly as much a chief of staff as Priebus or
Bannon, all of them reporting directly to the president." Goodness, where is the editor?
Regardless of whether you like or hate President Trump, don't waste your money on this book,
as you won't learn anything.
Fire and Fury reads like a book-length blog entry. The insider perspective is interesting
and entertaining but Henry Holt and Co. should be ashamed of themselves for being quick to
release a book that is filled with awful writing habits and A LOT of typos and grammatical
errors. The lack of editing is frustratingly distracting. The author constantly interrupts
his sentences with tidbits of mildly interesting, but not crucial, information and he has a
bizarre fondness for parenthetical "fun facts." THEY'RE CALLED FOOTNOTES. USE THEM. To write
in the voice of the author, "I can't even believe he writes for GQ and Vanity Fair."
Read it, or don't read it, but I'd advise keeping your expectations low.
It would be an understatement to simply indicate that Trump demonstrates the
characteristics of a short sighted, pompous ego driven narcissist; A conclusion easily
reached by his daily Twitter rants combined by his apparent inability to intelligently string
multiple words together and not sound like a 12 year old child. I concede that he is far from
presidential and further admit that he received my vote, not a vote of support but a vote
against Hillary, basically the lesser of two evils.
Michael Wolff's book adds little to my impression of the Trump organization but is an affront
to my intelligence in his attempt to sell this rubbish as the result of investigative
reporting. Short of Mr. Wolff having a supernatural gift of clairvoyance and thought reading,
it would be impossible for him to create a factual representation of Trump and staff as
throughout the book he references the collective and inner thoughts of groups and
individuals. I suggest the reader highlight the terms " everyone", "they", "in Trump's view",
etc. Somehow Mr. Wolff is able to discern the unspoken thoughts of essentially every member
of the Trump team, Trump's wife, daughter, son-in-law and acquaintances without them actually
saying what is written in the book. The author liberally takes every opportunity to inform
the reader what an individual or collective group of people are not saying but "believe",
"think", "in their view", etc.
While there may be much truth in the story that the White House is far from organized and the
President has few redeeming attributes, this book falls short in meeting the standards of
credibility based on well researched facts. Mr. Trump's questionable character, demeanor and
erratic behavior should give reason for concern for our nation. The impossible perspective
and insight required for Mr. Wolff to present this as a factual account of the Trump
organization is an insult to any one of average intelligence.
I can barely get through this book. While there are some surprising admissions, most of
what is in the book, we already know or assumed. The rest of the book is a tribute to Bannon
and creates more smoke screen for Trump.
At one point Wolff mentions the alleged collusion with Russia. He asserts that if there
was collusion, Trump was an unwitting victim of it, not realizing how his praise of Russia
was affecting them and their actions. When Wolff writes about the Steele dossier, he
addresses two positions. The dossier is either true or false but believed true by a rabid
press. He also mentions that the Trump administration was advised not to piss off the Intel
community or they'll have a 2-3 yr Russia investigation with daily leaks. This implies that
there's no validity to the Russia investigation. It's just vengeance being taken by an angry
Intel community.
Wolff describes the speech Trump made to the CIA shortly after his inauguration. He says,
"Witnesses would describe his reception at the CIA as either Beatles-like emotional
outpouring or a response so confounded and appalled that, in the seconds after he finished,
you could hear a pin drop." While, the latter description is accurate, Wolff slips in a
positive reaction that sounds completely false. I can't believe anyone at the CIA responded
to Trump's speech with a 'Beatles-like emotional outpouring'. That's pure crap. The whole
books is like that. It's supposed to be a tell-all, but there is this undercurrent of praise
and 'alternative facts' about Trump. I've only read about 20% of the book and I don't think I
can go any further.
This book doesn't ring true and it doesn't serve a purpose. It's like listening to Alex
Jones or reading National Enquirer on steroids, just gleeful childish destruction. Wolff
writing is the journalistic equivalent of the straw-men he portrays.
The story started as an article and just grew endlessly. There is little structure,
pointless mean gossip and no analysis. Wolff is lacking focus and strategy. He doesn't know
why he wrote the book and he feels surprised about the success of the book. The juiciest
parts of the book has already been published for free in The Guardian, New York Magazine and
GQ.
I'm not American and I don't live in the US so I have no personal agenda writing this
review. I follow American politics and have read several good books about the subject and the
characters involved, including biographies of key people in US history. Trump is "the great
white hope" for many conservative populist voters in Europe. We have suffered much worse
leaders and are 40-50 years ahead of US in disaster immigration politics. Compared to most
ultra-liberal leaders in Europe, Trump is full of wisdom
I read 4-5 chapters. The beginning and the end and some chapters in the middle. I asked
for a refund and was granted one of this sad tabloid. Thank you Amazon. Wolff just won a
lottery ticket and is now running around ruining his life and reputation.
"... I'm still trying to wrap my head around this image: Michael Wolff, middle-aged, bald-headed guy with screaming "I'm a New York media elite" glasses sitting on a crumb-strewn couch in the West Wing hallway, taking notes. Not one day, not two days, but according to his account, week after week over the first eight months of the Trump administration. Sitting, watching, more than occasionally getting briefed on the soap opera going on around President Chaos. And (did I mention) taking notes? ..."
I'm still trying to wrap my head around this image: Michael Wolff, middle-aged, bald-headed
guy with screaming "I'm a New York media elite" glasses sitting on a crumb-strewn couch in the
West Wing hallway, taking notes. Not one day, not two days, but according to his account, week after week over the first
eight months of the Trump administration. Sitting, watching, more than occasionally getting
briefed on the soap opera going on around President Chaos. And (did I mention) taking
notes?
"Shortly after January 20, I took up a semi-permanent seat on a couch in the West Wing," he
writes in the introduction to his book. "Since then I have conducted more than 200
interviews."
... ... ...
Wolff and Trump deserve each other in every way. They are both symptoms and products of the
toxic sick ward where the values are money and fame, and hubris and backstabbing are the norm.
The crown jewel is a winning headline in Page Six.
In one of his savviest passages in "Fire
and Fury," Wolff points this out:
"Media is personal. It is a series of blood scores. The media in its often collective mind
decides who is going to rise and who is going to fall, who lives and dies. If you stay around
long enough in the media eye, your fate, like that of a banana republic despot, is often an
unkind one -- a law Hillary Clinton was not able to circumvent. The media has the last
word."
burphelsonAFB • 9 hours ago
the fact that this administration allowed a journalist unfettered access to the West Wing
for months shows how clueless, arrogant and AMATEUR they are. They deserve what they're
getting.
Central to the Trump-Bannon approach to US politics has been the fist of defiance against
those entities of establishment fame. There is the Central Intelligence Agency, which Trump
scorned; there is the FBI, which Trump is at war with. Then there is the Department of Justice,
which he regards as singularly unjust.
Now he is fraternizing with former enemy
Meantime the Trump machine, continues to function with indignant disdain toward the old Obama
establishment. As long as that lasts, he will thrive.
It was always about the money laundering.
From today's Guardian:
Trump predicted in an interview with the New York Times last week that the special counsel
was "going to be fair", though he also said the investigation "makes the country look very
bad". The president and his allies deny any collusion with Russia and the Kremlin has denied
interfering.
Bannon has criticised Trump's decision to fire Comey. In Wolff's book, obtained by the
Guardian ahead of publication from a bookseller in New England, he suggests White House hopes
for a quick end to the Mueller investigation are gravely misplaced.
"You realise where this is going," he is quoted as saying. "This is all about money
laundering. Mueller chose [senior prosecutor Andrew] Weissmann first and he is a
money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr
and Jared Kushner It's as plain as a hair on your face."
Last month it was reported that federal prosecutors had subpoenaed records from Deutsche
Bank, the German financial institution that has lent hundreds of millions of dollars to the
Kushner property empire. Bannon continues: "It goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner
shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They're going to go right through that. They're going to
roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me."
"Once there was a collection of Judeo-Christian nation-states, Bannon argued, that practiced a humane form of biblical capitalism
and fostered culturally coherent communities."
The history of 18th and 19th century capitalism is rife with open Anti-Semitism. Jews were tolerated (barely) and periodically
subjected to everything from mild prejudicial social-shunning to exclusion from certain fields of endeavor to ...progroms.
"Judeo-Christian"
is mythological revisionism that is currently advantageous politically to the Right Wing since it features a pro-Israel, anti-Muslim,
and radical Christian "End-of-Days" cultism that relies on the "rise of Israel" fulfillment of prophecy.
As for the "humane form of biblical capitalism" that relied on slavery as an economic engine, famine as an expedient solution
(India during WW II) and other depredations such as intolerable working conditions and starvation wages--how is that better than
Davos-style Globalism?
Bannon is a proto-fascist opportunist -- dangerous, big-league. The day he gets Trump distracted from Meryl Streep and has
Trumps attention for that minute will be the first of many disasters. You can pine for the boiler-plate Paul Ryan version of predictable
and consistent management of Capitalism.
Judeo-Christian forces vs Islamofascism -- there's a faint whiff of Crusade in that juxtaposition, but don't be naive-
the real Crusade has already begun, besieging the fundamental values of honesty, decency, and humanism.
Dugin's contempt for human rights is consistent with his belief in a social order based on religion (likeiwse Bannon). Trump
could hardly care less about that, he's more of a libertine.
What Trump, Bannon, Dugin, and Putin can all agree on is consolidation of national government and corporate interests, a kind
of corporatism, similar to Fascism under Mussolini. Which had also a strong element of "Make Italy Great Again", with the Roman
Empire as its nostalgic anchor.
The uncertain economic and social times we are in make some people yearn for a strong leader. A large minority of Americans
seems to see that in Trump. What I see coming forward is not at all chaos, but rather the systematic and organized looting of
our economy under a government that puts corporate interests above all else.
A very perceptive column. This makes the mission of the Christian left very clear. Globalism at its best is the attempt to
harness the creative energy of humanity to build a world which is just, in harmony with itself, and advancing its understanding
of the natural world and human behavior for the benefit of all. The Christian left must provide the spiritual vision to energize
this effort, covering all of our efforts with compassion. Otherwise, Bannon's perception of a vacuum at the heart of what we are
doing will be proved true.
The suggestion that once in office, Trump and his acolytes will simply abandon their closely held philosophical and actual
prejudices and fall lovingly into the arms of more traditional, establishment advisors is ridiculous. There is nothing in the
history of either Trump or his fire-breathing true believers to indicate that compromise is a notion that comes easily, if at
all, to them. More likely, the gridlock disease that has long plagued Congress may be transmitted to the White House, where we'll
then find that an emotional and experientially ill-equipped president reaches into his resentment-filled gut to make a decision
that reflects not considered judgment, but his very own biases that can be communicated in a 140 character tweet.
Where we agree we can move forward where we disagree is the work we need to do. To move forward with disagreement leads to
anger, violence and ultimately war.
What's important to remember about Trump, as Brooks points out here, is that he is "basically uninterested in anything but
his own status at the moment." In 10 days, Trump's status at the moment will be subject to the opinions of all Americans. If things
turn south--and most times in a presidency things eventually turn south--who will Trump listen to in order to improve his "status
at the moment'? Remember, it was Steve Bannon who he turned to when his campaign was on the rocks, not General Mattis.
A problem for Trump the campaigner (though it may in fact have been a strength among his most ardent supporters) was his willingness
to say/do seemingly anything in order to get elected, i.e. jail his opponent, extra-constitutional surveillance of Muslims, mock
a disabled reporter, retweet white supremacists, etc.
To me, the question is, once in power, will Trump be willing to do anything in order to maintain or improve his "status at
the moment." For thin-skinned, needy leaders like Trump, when people at home turn on him, finding enemies abroad is usually the
answer. It's troubling to imagine who will have his ear then.
Bannon mentioning Christianity makes me wonder what he really thinks about Christ and his teachings. The same goes with his
boss, Donald Trump. I fail to see anything at all in their behavior that reflects what Jesus taught. All this makes me question
what supposedly Christian conservative Trump supporters think about their faith and how it matches up with the behavior of Bannon
and Trump.
How is globalism de-spiritualized? What about loving your neighbor as yourself? That is a fundamental teaching of Christianity,
and it doesn't stop at our borders.
I don't know how Mr. Bannon considers historical capitalism to have been humane. Child labor? Oppression of local workers across
the globe? Extreme pollution to the point of rivers burning (Cuyahoga River in Cincinnati) or choking smog (London, Los Angeles,
Mexico City, Delhi)? His version is history written by the victors.
"... Economic nationalism is a term used to describe policies which are guided by the idea of protecting domestic consumption, labor and capital formation, even if this requires the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labour, goods and capital. It is in opposition to Globalisation in many cases, or at least on questions the unrestricted good of Free trade. It would include such doctrines as Protectionism, Import substitution, Mercantilism and planned economies. ..."
"... Examples of economic nationalism include Japan's use of MITI to "pick winners and losers", Malaysia's imposition of currency controls in the wake of the 1997 currency crisis, China's controlled exchange of the Yuan, Argentina's economic policy of tariffs and devaluation in the wake of the 2001 financial crisis and the United States' use of tariffs to protect domestic steel production. ..."
"... Think about what a trade war with China would do. It would crash the world economy as China tried to cash in on it US Treasury holdings with the US likely defaulting......just one possible scenario. ..."
"... Here is Bannon's latest: Bannon dismissed the far-right as irrelevant: "Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more." "These guys are a collection of clowns," he added. Bannon is no friend of White Nationalists. ..."
"... I think Bannon is an authentic economic nationalist, and one that Trump feels is good counsel on those matters. If this is so, then Bannon cannot be trying to provoke a trade war with China, since that would be an economic catastrophe for the US (and China and the rest of the world). I'm hoping he's playing bad cop and eventually Trump will play good cop in negotiations for more investment by China in the US and other goodies in exchange for 'well, not much' from the US. Similar to what the US dragged out of Japan in the 80s nd 90s. ..."
"... Bannon (and most of his followers) have no trust in the corporate sector as they are to a large degree Globalists - they used the US and then threw it aside in pursuit of profit elsewhere. For that, he would even call them traitors. So you could call him a Nationalist. ..."
"... Bannon does not seem himself as an "ethno-nationalist". Yet his slanderous contempt for the liberal ethos/values of many Americans would tend to make one question if he can be called a Nationalist. ..."
"... If Bannon was a Zionist, he would never make the comments he does against the financial sector ..."
"... Isn't exceptionalism the same as narcissism? ..."
"... At least the concern for 10 million in Seoul (mostly missing in the discussion of other leaders) show he is not a psychopath ..."
So lets start parsing this economic nationalism that Bannon is making happen with Trump.
Economic nationalism is a term used to describe policies which are guided by the idea of protecting domestic consumption, labor
and capital formation, even if this requires the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labour, goods
and capital. It is in opposition to Globalisation in many cases, or at least on questions the unrestricted good of Free trade.
It would include such doctrines as Protectionism, Import substitution, Mercantilism and planned economies.
Examples of economic nationalism include Japan's use of MITI to "pick winners and losers", Malaysia's imposition of currency
controls in the wake of the 1997 currency crisis, China's controlled exchange of the Yuan, Argentina's economic policy of tariffs
and devaluation in the wake of the 2001 financial crisis and the United States' use of tariffs to protect domestic steel production.
Think about what a trade war with China would do. It would crash the world economy as China tried to cash in on it US Treasury
holdings with the US likely defaulting......just one possible scenario.
At least now, IMO, the battle for a multi-polar (finance) world is out in the open.....let the side taking by nations begin.
I hope Bannon is wrong about the timing of potential global power shifting and the US loses its empire status.
Here is Bannon's latest: Bannon dismissed the far-right as irrelevant: "Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element.
I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more." "These guys are a collection
of clowns," he added. Bannon is no friend of White Nationalists.
Bannon can be perfectly mature, adult and realist on some points and be totally blinded by biases on others - him wanting total
economic war against China is proof enough. So I don't rule out that he has a blind spot over Iran and wants to get rid of the
regime. I mean, even Trump is realist and adult in a few issues, yet is an oblivious fool on others.
Kind of hard to find someone who's always adult and realist, actually. You can only hope to pick someone who's more realist
than most people. Or build a positronic robot and vote for him.
I think Bannon is an authentic economic nationalist, and one that Trump feels is good counsel on those matters. If this is so,
then Bannon cannot be trying to provoke a trade war with China, since that would be an economic catastrophe for the US (and China
and the rest of the world). I'm hoping he's playing bad cop and eventually Trump will play good cop in negotiations for more investment
by China in the US and other goodies in exchange for 'well, not much' from the US. Similar to what the US dragged out of Japan
in the 80s nd 90s.
@ Everybody who bought into the MSM Steve Bannon promoted white supremacy and through Breitbart. Suggested you read his world
view expressed in remarks at Human Dignity Institute, Vatican Conference 2014
Progressives and Steve Bannon have something surprising in common: hating Wall Street
Pop quiz! Which major American political figure said the following:
"The 2008 crisis is really driven I believe by the greed, much of it driven by the greed of the investment banks."
"I think the bailouts in 2008 were wrong."
"[N]ot one criminal charge has ever been brought to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis."
"The Republican Party "is really a collection of crony capitalists that feel that they have a different set of rules"
and are "the reason that the United States' financial situation is so dire."
In the Vatican talk, Bannon described in length and detail how he views the biggest issues of the day:
He wants to tear down "crony capitalism": "a brutal form of capitalism that is really about creating wealth and
creating value for a very small subset of people.[.]
He is against Ayn Rand's version of libertarianism: "The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing,
is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism.[.]
He believes the West needs to wage "a global war against Islamic fascism": "They have a Twitter account up today,
ISIS does, about turning the United States into a "river of blood" if it comes in and tries to defend the city of Baghdad.
And trust me, that is going to come to Europe.[.]
He believes the capitalism of the "Judeo Christian West" is in crisis: "If you look at the leaders of capitalism
at that time, when capitalism was I believe at its highest flower and spreading its benefits to most of mankind, almost
all of those capitalists were strong believers in the Judeo-Christian West.[.]
He believes the racists that are attracted to Trump will become increasingly irrelevant: [.]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
this recent Bannon interview with The American Prospect will now go viral. Drudgereport headlines the WAPO spin.
Except for the selective Zion-flavored warmongering, Bannon appears to be an intelligent and thoughtful person. Also crafty. Is
he not "Trump's Brain" in the way that Rove was Bush's Brain?
Agree. I think Bannon's quite bright and very very clever and crafty.
However, if anyone believes the lies he spewed yesterday about white supremacists, let me enlighten you that that's what's
called "good PR" or something. Bannon is someone whom I hold quite responsible for contributing to the rise of White Supremacy
in the USA, which I consider a clear and present danger. Bannon's dismissive hand waving yesterday is meant to dissemble. Guess
some are willing to buy what he was selling yesterday. Not me.
The first group to call themselves Progressives were the 19th century Populists. Their mantle was adopted by T. Roosevelt and
other like-minded Republicans. Lafollette and Wallace are perhaps the best remembered Progressives--yes, FDR is portrayed as one,
but when examined really isn't: Eleanor was far more Progressive and since she was people also thought he was too. Once Wallace
was ousted from government, Democrats reverted to their old ways, although Truman did order the military to desegregate--perhaps
his only Progressive act. JFK was in the process of becoming a Progressive in the months prior to his murder. LBJ very reluctantly
made some Progressive noises in his War on Poverty that he was essentially forced into thanks to massive ethnic strife and related
riots during the 60s. But essentially since the beginning of WW2, Progressives and their goals vanished from the political landscape.
Nader brought it back to the fringe from the wilderness, but the so-called Progressive Caucus really isn't Progressive thanks
to its war promotion.
Admittedly, I don't know much about Steve Bannon; he certainly isn't a Progressive, but he doesn't seem to be a Regressive
either. The points he made at the Vatican Talk supplied by likklemore @28 are rather encouraging in an anti-Deep State manner.
So, his interaction with The American Prospect I don't see as surprising--he's seeking allies: "'It's a great honor to
finally track you [Robert Kuttner] down. I've followed your writing for years and I think you and I are in the same boat when
it comes to China. You absolutely nailed it.'... Bannon explained that his strategy is to battle the trade doves inside the administration
while building an outside coalition of trade hawks that includes left as well as right. Hence the phone call to me." I think Kuttner
will discover Bannon will "still [be] there" after Labor Day, so he might as well make his travel plans.
I won't give you a pass. Your bias and lack of intelligence is on great display.
Read and understand as Bannon is proven right on events.
The $28 - trillion (US dollar) global bailouts in 2008 is proven to have failed. A handful on Wall Street became trillionaires
instead of being suited in special stripes.
Negative interest rates steal the retirement savings of seniors. Pensions and Insurance companies cannot meet promised payouts.
And all is fine. Corruption flourishes. Judeo-Christian moral values are not in crisis.
@12... "Bannon is a fascist" I'm not so sure. Mussolini defined fascism as being an alliance of corporate and state powers...
but Bannon (and most of his followers) have no trust in the corporate sector as they are to a large degree Globalists - they used
the US and then threw it aside in pursuit of profit elsewhere. For that, he would even call them traitors. So you could call him
a Nationalist.
@ 8 as you say... Bannon does not seem himself as an "ethno-nationalist". Yet his slanderous contempt for the liberal ethos/values
of many Americans would tend to make one question if he can be called a Nationalist.
@ 9 If Bannon was a Zionist, he would never make the comments he does against the financial sector (see @28).
@28 Bannon would never call himself a Socialist, but the most logical expression of his individualist views when applied to
the business world are expressed by none other than Ayn Rand. The financial world simply got legal cover to act on the views that
he rails against. Bannon does not like what he sees when the rules he claims for himself are given to the rest of the world. Which
makes him an "Exceptionalist"??
Isn't exceptionalism the same as narcissism?
At least the concern for 10 million in Seoul (mostly missing in the discussion of other leaders) show he is not a psychopath.
Never trust a Wolff in sheep's clothing. The neoliberal elite was desperate for such a stooge, and in Wolffe they've found one.
This is clearly a hatchet job of Democratic operative. Judging from "burn rate" he is not bad writer, but here he really does not
understand what he is writing about and what fighte with neocons and intelligence agencies Trump WH
was forced for fight. His attempt to present Bannon as the person who runs White House is pathetic and wrong.
Kushner (if it was he) was actually right about firing Comey, but it was done clumsily and too late. It should have been done on
the first day of the presidency.
Still while I view the book highly negatively, as a typical hatchet job, he sometimes provide some interesting bits of information,
which might or not be true. But his exaggeration of the role of Bannon is very annoying. The campaign actually was greatly
promoted the universal disgust at Hillary and the crisis of neoliberalism in the country. With those drivers who can make huge mistakes
and still win because you are on the right side of the history. which is what happened.
Wolff provides a lot of dirty laundry style information but none of importance from the point of view of Trump election promises
and neocon attempt to subdue him (in close cooperation with intelligence agencies). His is hired gun.
His praise of Bannon looks disingenuous and he essentially burned his source, ending his political career.
Notable quotes:
"... His longtime friend Roger Ailes , the former head of Fox News, liked to say that if you want a career in television, first run for president. Now Trump, encouraged by Ailes, was floating rumors about a Trump network. It was a great future. He would come out of this campaign, Trump assured Ailes, with a far more powerful brand and untold opportunities. ..."
"... "This is bigger than I ever dreamed of," he told Ailes a week before the election. "I don't think about losing, because it isn't losing. We've totally won." ..."
"... Bannon, who became chief executive of Trump's team in mid-August, called it "the broke-dick campaign." Almost immediately, he saw that it was hampered by an even deeper structural flaw: The candidate who billed himself as a billionaire -- ten times over -- refused to invest his own money in it. Bannon told Kushner that, after the first debate in September, they would need another $50 million to cover them until Election Day. ..."
"... Michael Flynn , the retired general who served as Trump's opening act at campaign rallies, had been told by his friends that it had not been a good idea to take $45,000 from the Russians for a speech. "Well, it would only be a problem if we won," Flynn assured them. ..."
"... Not only did Trump disregard the potential conflicts of his own business deals and real-estate holdings, he audaciously refused to release his tax returns . Why should he? Once he lost, Trump would be both insanely famous and a martyr to Crooked Hillary. His daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared would be international celebrities. Steve Bannon would become the de facto head of the tea-party movement. Kellyanne Conway would be a cable-news star. Melania Trump, who had been assured by her husband that he wouldn't become president, could return to inconspicuously lunching. Losing would work out for everybody. Losing was winning. ..."
"... From the moment of victory, the Trump administration became a looking-glass presidency: Every inverse assumption about how to assemble and run a White House was enacted and compounded, many times over. The decisions that Trump and his top advisers made in those first few months -- from the slapdash transition to the disarray in the West Wing -- set the stage for the chaos and dysfunction that have persisted throughout his first year in office. This was a real-life version of Mel Brooks's The Producers , where the mistaken outcome trusted by everyone in Trump's inner circle -- that they would lose the election -- wound up exposing them for who they really were. ..."
"... Ailes, a veteran of the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 41 administrations, tried to impress on Trump the need to create a White House structure that could serve and protect him. "You need a son of a bitch as your chief of staff," he told Trump. "And you need a son of a bitch who knows Washington. You'll want to be your own son of a bitch, but you don't know Washington." Ailes had a suggestion: John Boehner , who had stepped down as Speaker of the House only a year earlier. "Who's that?" asked Trump. ..."
"... As much as the president himself, the chief of staff determines how the Executive branch -- which employs 4 million people -- will run. The job has been construed as deputy president, or even prime minister. But Trump had no interest in appointing a strong chief of staff with a deep knowledge of Washington. Among his early choices for the job was Kushner -- a man with no political experience beyond his role as a calm and flattering body man to Trump during the campaign. ..."
"... It was Ann Coulter who finally took the president-elect aside. "Nobody is apparently telling you this," she told him. "But you can't. You just can't hire your children." ..."
"... So Trump turned to Reince Priebus, the RNC chairman, who had became the subject of intense lobbying by House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. If congressional leaders were going to have to deal with an alien like Donald Trump, then best they do it with the help of one of their own kind. ..."
"... "Here's the deal," a close Trump associate told Priebus. "In an hour meeting with him, you're going to hear 54 minutes of stories, and they're going to be the same stories over and over again. So you have to have one point to make, and you pepper it in whenever you can." ..."
"... Priebus demonstrated no ability to keep Trump from talking to anyone who wanted his ear. The president-elect enjoyed being courted. On December 14, a high-level delegation from Silicon Valley came to Trump Tower to meet him. Later that afternoon, according to a source privy to details of the conversation, Trump called Rupert Murdoch, who asked him how the meeting had gone. ..."
"... "Oh, great, just great," said Trump. "These guys really need my help. Obama was not very favorable to them, too much regulation. This is really an opportunity for me to help them." "Donald," said Murdoch, "for eight years these guys had Obama in their pocket. They practically ran the administration. They don't need your help." "Take this H-1B visa issue . They really need these H-1B visas." ..."
"... Ailes's Fox News, with its $1.5 billion in annual profits, had dominated Republican politics for two decades. ..."
On the afternoon of November 8, 2016,
Kellyanne Conway
settled into her glass office at Trump Tower. Right up until the last weeks of the race, the campaign headquarters had remained
a listless place. All that seemed to distinguish it from a corporate back office were a few posters with right-wing slogans.
Conway, the campaign's manager, was in a remarkably buoyant mood, considering she was about to experience a resounding, if not
cataclysmic, defeat. Donald Trump would lose the election -- of this she was sure -- but he would quite possibly hold the defeat
to under six points. That was a substantial victory. As for the looming defeat itself, she shrugged it off: It was
Reince Priebus
's fault, not hers.
She had spent a good part of the day calling friends and allies in the political world and
blaming
Priebus , the chairman of the Republican National Committee. Now she briefed some of the television producers and anchors whom
she had been carefully courting since joining the Trump campaign -- and with whom she had been actively interviewing in the last
few weeks, hoping to land a permanent on-air job after the election.
... ... ...
How He Got the Story
This story is adapted from Michael Wolff's book
Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House , to be published by Henry Holt & Co. on January 9. Wolff, who chronicles
the administration from Election Day to this past October, conducted conversations and interviews over a period of 18 months with
the president, most members of his senior staff, and many people to whom they in turn spoke. Shortly after Trump's inauguration,
Wolff says, he was able to take up "something like a semi-permanent seat on a couch in the West Wing" -- an idea encouraged by the
president himself. Because no one was in a position to either officially approve or formally deny such access, Wolff became "more
a constant interloper than an invited guest." There were no ground rules placed on his access, and he was required to make no promises
about how he would report on what he witnessed.
Since then, he conducted more than 200 interviews. In true Trumpian fashion, the administration's lack of experience and disdain
for political norms made for a hodgepodge of journalistic challenges. Information would be provided off-the-record or on deep background,
then casually put on the record. Sources would fail to set any parameters on the use of a conversation, or would provide accounts
in confidence, only to subsequently share their views widely. And the president's own views, private as well as public, were constantly
shared by others. The adaptation presented here offers a front-row view of Trump's presidency, from his improvised transition to
his first months in the Oval Office.
*Excerpted from Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House by Michael Wolff (Henry Holt and Co., January 9, 2018).
This article appears in the January 8, 2018, issue of New York Magazine.
Subscribe Now!
*This article has been updated to include more information from Wolff's book about the nature of Trump's conversation with
the Mercers.
Never trust a Wolff in sheep's clothing. The neoliberal elite was desperate for such a stooge, and in Wolffe they've found one.
Looks like a hatchet job by Hillary camp. And that was pretty Machiavellian idea to use Trump weakness for self-promotion is such
a devastating for him way. But as in any good hatchet job some details are probably true, while the whole story is not.
He overplays his hand trying to present Trump as a complete moron.
He oversell Bannon.
And he bought into Russiagate story.
Notable quotes:
"... By July, Jared and Ivanka, who had, in less than six months, traversed from socialite couple to royal family to the most powerful people in the world, were now engaged in a desperate dance to save themselves, which mostly involved blaming Trump himself. It was all his idea to fire Comey! "The daughter," Bannon declared, "will bring down the father." ..."
"... Most succinctly, no one expected him to survive Mueller. Whatever the substance of the Russia "collusion," Trump, in the estimation of his senior staff, did not have the discipline to navigate a tough investigation, nor the credibility to attract the caliber of lawyers he would need to help him. (At least nine major law firms had turned down an invitation to represent the president.) ..."
interviewed
Donald Trump for The Hollywood Reporter in June 2016, and he seemed to have liked -- or not disliked -- the piece I
wrote. "Great cover!" his press assistant, Hope Hicks, emailed me after it came out (it was
a picture of a belligerent
Trump in mirrored sunglasses). After the election, I proposed to him that I come to the White House and report an inside story for
later publication -- journalistically, as a fly on the wall -- which he seemed to misconstrue as a request for a job. No, I said.
I'd like to just watch and write a book. "A book?" he responded, losing interest. "I hear a lot of people want to write books," he
added, clearly not understanding why anybody would. "Do you know Ed Klein?" -- author of several virulently anti-Hillary books. "Great
guy. I think he should write a book about me." But sure, Trump seemed to say, knock yourself out.
Since the new White House was often uncertain about what the president meant or did not mean in any given utterance, his non-disapproval
became a kind of passport for me to hang around -- checking in each week at the Hay-Adams hotel, making appointments with various
senior staffers who put my name in the "system," and then wandering across the street to the White House and plunking myself down,
day after day, on a West Wing couch.
Never trust a Wolff in sheep's clothing. The neoliberal elite was desperate for such a stooge, and in Wolffe they've found one.
From the quote below looks like a sensationalist book. I could understand that level of disappointment of Trump, but it does not
look like a complete slander. More like yet another intelligence operation against him, which played Bannon narcissism like a violin.
Bannon appears in the book both stupid, disloyal and self-absorbed. What was his motivation to give all this information to hostile
to Trump reporter, especially a mole send to undermine Trump, other the plain vanilla vanity. If so he is extremely, fatally stupid
and vain.
As for his economic nationalism he has nothing but slogans. no any plan of actions no real efforts to built a party. absolutely
nothing. He is naked king of economic nationalism. If he was the initial author of Trump anti-Muslim bill he is in addition to that
incompetent (although the main blame is on Trump, who should know his staff better)
Bannon is a very strange creature and his pro-Israeli position does not correlate with with the economic nationalism and isolationalism.
But the even stranger things can happen in politics. The problem with Bannon that the does not really have an economic program for his
"economic nationalism". It is mostly slogans. How really to decrease unemployment and recover manufacturing are much more complex things
them slogans. And who will support a "New New Deal". What social forces?
The book portraits Bannon even bigger narcissist then Trump. And are not conversation with the President a privileged information?
How this guy got such a free access to the WH with the tape-recorder. Where was Secret service.
there is also a definite antipathy to Kushner that is evident from the book. So it is not only hatchet job on Trump, but also on
Kushner.
Notable quotes:
"... When you take out all the never-Trump guys who signed all those letters and all the neocons who got us in all these wars ... it's not a deep bench ..."
"... Bannon was curiously able to embrace Trump while at the same time suggesting he did not take him entirely seriously. ..."
"... when he took over the Trump campaign, Bannon, beyond a few interviews he had done with Trump for his Breitbart radio show, was pretty sure he hadn't spent more than ten minutes in one-on-one conversation with Trump. ..."
"... "I think Comey is a third-rate guy. I think Brennan is a second-rate guy," Bannon said, dismissing the FBI director and the CIA director. ..."
"... "Donald might not be Nixon in China," said Ailes, deadpan, suggesting that for Trump to seize the mantle of global transformation might strain credulity. Bannon smiled. "Bannon in China," he said, with both remarkable grandiosity and wry self-deprecation. "How's the kid?" asked Ailes, referring to Trump's son-in-law and paramount political adviser, thirty-six-year-old Jared Kushner. ..."
"... "He's my partner," said Bannon, his tone suggesting that if he felt otherwise, he was nevertheless determined to stay on message. "Really?" said a dubious Ailes. "He's on the team." "He's had lot of lunches with Rupert." "In fact," said Bannon, "I could use your help here." Bannon then spent several minutes trying to recruit Ailes to help kneecap Murdoch. Ailes, since his ouster from Fox, had become only more bitter towards Murdoch. Now Murdoch was frequently jawboning the president-elect and encouraging him toward establishment moderation -- all a strange inversion in the ever-stranger currents of American conservatism. ..."
At nine-thirty, three hours late, a good part of the dinner already eaten, Bannon finally arrived. Wearing a disheveled blazer,
his signature pairing of two shirts, and military fatigues, the unshaven, overweight sixty-three-year-old joined the other guests
at the table and immediately took control of the conversation. Pushing a proffered glass of wine away -- "I don't drink" -- he dived
into a live commentary, an urgent download of information about the world he was about to take over.
"We're going to flood the zone so we have every cabinet member for the next seven days through their confirmation hearings," he
said of the business-and-military i950s-type cabinet choices. "Tillerson is two days, Session is two days, Mattis is two days...."
Bannon veered from "Mad Dog" Mattis -- the retired four-star general whom Trump had nominated as secretary of defense -- to a
long riff on torture, the surprising liberalism of generals, and the stupidity of the civilian-military bureaucracy. Then it was
on to the looming appointment of Michael Flynn -- a favorite Trump general who'd been the opening act at many Trump rallies -- as
the National Security Advisor.
"He's fine. He's not Jim Mattis and he's not John Kelly... but he's fine. He just needs the right staff around him." Still, Bannon
averred: " When you take out all the never-Trump guys who signed all those letters and all the neocons who got us in all these
wars ... it's not a deep bench ."
Bannon said he'd tried to push John Bolton, the famously hawkish diplomat, for the job as National Security Advisor. Bolton was
an Ailes favorite, too. "He's a bomb thrower," said Ailes. "And a strange little fucker. But you need him. Who else is good on Israel?
Flynn is a little nutty on Iran. Tillerson" -- the secretary of state designate -- "just knows oil."
"Bolton's mustache is a problem," snorted Bannon. "Trump doesn't think he looks the part. You know Bolton is an acquired taste."
"Well, he got in trouble because he got in a fight in a hotel one night and chased some woman." "If I told Trump that, he might have
the job."
* * *
Bannon was curiously able to embrace Trump while at the same time suggesting he did not take him entirely seriously.
He had first met Trump, the on-again off-again presidential candidate, in 2010; at a meeting in Trump Tower, Bannon had proposed
to Trump that he spend half a million dollars backing Tea Party-style candidates as a way to further his presidential ambitions.
Bannon left the meeting figuring that Trump would never cough up that kind of dough. He just wasn't a serious player. Between that
first encounter and mid-August 2016, when he took over the Trump campaign, Bannon, beyond a few interviews he had done with Trump
for his Breitbart radio show, was pretty sure he hadn't spent more than ten minutes in one-on-one conversation with Trump.
But now Bannon's Zeitgeist moment had arrived. Everywhere there was a sudden sense of global self-doubt. Brexit in the UK, waves
of immigrants arriving on Europe's angry shores, the disenfranchisement of the workingman, the specter of more financial meltdown,
Bernie Sanders and his liberal revanchism -- everywhere was backlash. Even the most dedicated exponents of globalism were hesitating.
Bannon believed that great numbers of people were suddenly receptive to a new message: the world needs borders -- or the world should
return to a time when it had borders. When America was great. Trump had become the platform for that message.
By that January evening, Bannon had been immersed in Donald Trump's world for almost five months. And though he had accumulated
a sizable catalogue of Trump's peculiarities, and cause enough for possible alarm about the unpredictability of his boss and his
views, that did not detract from Trump's extraordinary, charismatic appeal to the right-wing, Tea Party, Internet meme base, and
now, in victory, from the opportunity he was giving Steve Bannon.
* * *
"Does he get it?" asked Ailes suddenly, pausing and looking intently at Bannon. He meant did Trump get it. This seemed to be a
question about the right-wing agenda: Did the playboy billionaire really get the workingman populist cause? But it was possibly a
point-blank question about the nature of power itself. Did Trump get where history had put him?
Bannon took a sip of water. "He gets it," said Bannon, after hesitating for perhaps a beat too long. "Or he gets what he gets."
With a sideways look, Ailes continued to stare him down, as though waiting for Bannon to show more of his cards.
"Really," Bannon said. "He's on the program. It's his program." Pivoting from Trump himself, Bannon plunged on with the Trump
agenda. "Day one we're moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. Netanyahu's all in. Sheldon" -- Sheldon Adelson, the casino billionaire,
far-right Israel defender, and Trump supporter -- "is all in. We know where we're heading on this." "Does Donald know?" asked a skeptical
Ailes. Bannon smiled -- as though almost with a wink -- and continued: "Let Jordan take the West Bank, let Egypt take Gaza. Let them
deal with it. Or sink trying. The Saudis are on the brink, Egyptians are on the brink, all scared to death of Persia ... Yemen, Sinai,
Libya ... this thing is bad.... That's why Russia is so key.... Is Russia that bad? They're bad guys. But the world is full of bad
guys." Bannon offered all this with something like ebullience -- a man remaking the world. "But it's good to know the bad guys are
the bad guys," said Ailes, pushing Bannon. "Donald may not know."
The real enemy, said an on-point Bannon, careful not to defend Trump too much or to diss him at all, was China. China was the
first front in a new cold war. And it had all been misunderstood in the Obama years -- what we thought we understood we didn't understand
at all. That was the failure of American intelligence. "I think Comey is a third-rate guy. I think Brennan is a second-rate guy,"
Bannon said, dismissing the FBI director and the CIA director.
"The White House right now is like Johnson's White House in 1968. Susan Rice" -- Obama's National Security Advisor -- "is running
the campaign against ISIS as a National Security Advisor. They're picking the targets, she's picking the drone strikes. I mean, they're
running the war with just as much effectiveness as Johnson in sixty-eight. The Pentagon is totally disengaged from the whole thing.
Intel sendees are disengaged from the whole thing. The media has let Obama off the hook. Take the ideology away from it, this is
complete amateur hour. I don't know what Obama does. Nobody on Capitol Hill knows him, no business guys know him -- what has he accomplished,
what does he do?"
"Where's Donald on this?" asked Ailes, now with the clear implication that Bannon was far out ahead of his benefactor. "He's totally
on board." "Focused?" "He buys it."
"I wouldn't give Donald too much to think about," said an amused Ailes. Bannon snorted. "Too much, too little -- doesn't necessarily
change things."
"What has he gotten himself into with the Russians?" pressed Ailes. "Mostly," said Bannon, "he went to Russia and he thought he
was going to meet Putin. But Putin couldn't give a shit about him. So he's kept trying." "He's Donald," said Aies.
"It's a magnificent thing," said Bannon, who had taken to regarding Trump as something like a natural wonder, beyond explanation.
Again, as though setting the issue of Trump aside -- merely a large and peculiar presence to both be thankful for and to have
to abide -- Bannon, in the role he had conceived for himself, the auteur of the Trump presidency, charged forward: "China's everything.
Nothing else matters. We don't get China right, we don't get anything right. This whole thing is very simple. China is where Nazi
Germany was in 1929 to 1930. The Chinese, like the Germans, are the most rational people in the world, until they're not. And they're
gonna flip like Germany in the thirties. You're going to have a hypernationalist state, and once that happens you can't put the genie
back in the bottle."
"Donald might not be Nixon in China," said Ailes, deadpan, suggesting that for Trump to seize the mantle of global transformation
might strain credulity. Bannon smiled. "Bannon in China," he said, with both remarkable grandiosity and wry self-deprecation. "How's
the kid?" asked Ailes, referring to Trump's son-in-law and paramount political adviser, thirty-six-year-old Jared Kushner.
"He's my partner," said Bannon, his tone suggesting that if he felt otherwise, he was nevertheless determined to stay on message.
"Really?" said a dubious Ailes.
"He's on the team." "He's had lot of lunches with Rupert." "In fact," said Bannon, "I could use your help here." Bannon then spent
several minutes trying to recruit Ailes to help kneecap Murdoch. Ailes, since his ouster from Fox, had become only more bitter towards
Murdoch. Now Murdoch was frequently jawboning the president-elect and encouraging him toward establishment moderation -- all a strange
inversion in the ever-stranger currents of American conservatism.
Bannon wanted Ailes to suggest to Trump, a man whose many neuroses included a horror of forgetfulness or senility, that Murdoch
might be losing it. "I'll call him," said Ailes. "But Trump would jump through hoops for Rupert. Like for Putin. Sucks up and shits
down. I just worry about who's jerking whose chain."
The older right-wing media wizard and the younger (though not by all that much) continued on to the other guests' satisfaction
until twelve-thirty, the older trying to see through to the new national enigma that was Trump -- although Ailes would say that in
fact Trump's behavior was ever predictable -- and the younger seemingly determined not to spoil his own moment of destiny. "Donald
Trump has got it. He's Trump, but he's got it. Trump is Trump," affirmed Bannon.
Trump is right. Bannon lost his job AND HIS MIND!
William Brown, 16 hours ago
BRUTUS BANNEN!
serge schouterden , 17 hours ago
This is why, when I taught to 16-18 year olds I urged them to keep their feet firmly on
the ground. Don't be cocky, arrogant etc. Let your actions speak for you. Bannon is arrogant
and thinks he is better than anyone else. Being humble is not in his book.
Matthew KsE , 15 hours ago
Everyone who wants to save Western Civilization, I'm with you 100 percent. Classical
Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative, every damn thing right of center and even part of the
center, WE NEED TO COME TOGETHER! Or the frothing at the mouth hardcore leftists and
democrats will gang rape this country until it goes from a beautiful, productive, sexy, free
woman, to a filthy gender fluid 2 dollar whore used and abused by the pimps known as
socialists and communists.
"This is war, you can't be choosy" -George Carlin
G Buz, 15 hours ago (edited)
Bannon had his own selfish reasons for leaking information and untruths to whoever and
others aren't necessarily fully on Trump's side. You mentioned one reason Trump did this,
Bannon's attack on his family. But I think Trump sees Bannon as "Bannon the loose cannon".
His attack takes Bannon out of the game. Selling lefty BS books is a small price.
Daniel Bohl, 14 hours ago
Sigh
It's either incompetence or conspiracy. I don't know which to believe.Or which is
worse.
Kimberly Weaver, 17 hours ago
Bannon is dirty! I am not buying this was a plan by the deep state that Bannon knew
nothing about OR a planned distraction by Trump.
GySgt DD Barton Ret, 15 hours ago
Don't follow the media's lead and perpetrate the false narratives ffs. I have listened to
hours of video today. I am thinking that Ben Shapiro and President Trump pretty much nailed
the situation down. Listen to them. Like Trump said, Bannon is out for himself.
Shapiro backed that up with his Bannon experiences from Breitbart. Bannon was the leaker
in the Whitehouse. He was also the one who brought the fox in the henhouse so to speak.
I almost believe Trump played them both and will make the media look like the idiots they
are once again. In fact, some aren't falling for the fake news .... Already see some saying
the book is unbelievable, literally. Trump's got this. Bannon is history.
Anonymous Sources, 17 hours ago
Stefan, it's called, "Political Theatrics" I find it hard to believe Mr. Bannon has turned
on a dime, something deeper is in play here.
Great Doofus, 15 hours ago (edited)
Bannon stood by Trump during the pussy tape incident, when even Pence was about to stab
him in the back. Trump throws his people under the bus all the time. See Flynn for example.
So he's the most disloyal. Bannon is just a mini-Trump.
Jason Collins, 11 hours ago
Trump has shown himself to be quite a brilliant psychological tactician. It wouldn't
surprise me at all if the reason he allowed this author to write this book was for the
specific purpose of triggering and thereby uncovering the Machiavellian nature of members of
his staff specifically so he could get rid of them. I've watched Trump do this sort of thing
many times, and almost no one realizes it. Trump is way more deliberate than most people
think.
Gus Evening, 16 hours ago
Trump gave into the neocons months ago. Bannon was the last of the nationalists. It's over
folks, Trump is a globalist stooge now.
Whytebio, 17 hours ago (edited)
Bannon has been a tumor in the Trump administration that got cut out - and the
administration is better for it. While Bannon was with the White House it struggled to do
anything productive and it accomplished its major legislative overhaul (massive tax cuts)
after he left and in contrast to what Bannon wanted, which was a massive tax hike and
infrastructure bill and protectionists tariffs. Now that Bannon is out of favor with Trump
and out of favor with the Mercer family and helped the GOP lose a safe Republican senate seat
it had held for 30 years, he bites the hand that fed him in an attempt to remain relevant and
now it's blown up in his face because he doesn't have 1/100th the backing he thought he
did.
Bannon was a slimy political opportunist and always has been, with a toxic brand that
drives people away. He attached himself to Palin then left her when she was no longer useful,
he hijacked Brietbart and fashioned it into an outlet for the alt-right then threw them under
the bus when they were no longer convenient, then he attached himself to Trump and tried to
throw him under the bus when he thought doing so would get him ahead. He was an albatross
around the neck of the administration and the massive improvement and productivity of the
white house since his departure shows it. Good riddance Bannon, you won't be missed and Trump
and his agenda is miles better off without you.
Dumisani Tsotetsi, 16 hours ago (edited)
Stefan is starting to disbelief. Trump might not be that smart. You chose the wrong white
guy to be president.
Never trust a Wolff in sheep's clothing. The neoliberal elite was desperate for such a stooge, and in Wolffe they've found one.
But his book is actually a political death sentence for Bannon.
Look also how this pressitute promotes Russiagate: "Steve Bannon was openly handicapping a 33.3 percent chance of impeachment, a 33.3 percent chance of resignation in the shadow
of the 25th amendment and a 33.3 percent chance that he might limp to the finish line on the strength of liberal arrogance and
weakness."
And the statement "Insiders believed that the only thing saving Mueller from being fired, and the government of the United
States from unfathomable implosion, is Trump's inability to grasp how much Mueller had on him and his family."
reminds me Beria approach to justice.
Notable quotes:
"... Insiders believed that the only thing saving Mueller from being fired, and the government of the United States from unfathomable implosion, is Trump's inability to grasp how much Mueller had on him and his family. ..."
"... At Mar-a-Lago, just before the new year, a heavily made-up Trump failed to recognize a succession of old friends. ..."
"... That gossipy last detail will have set off alarms in intelligence agencies around the world. ..."
As the first year wound down, Trump finally got a bill to sign. The tax bill, his singular accomplishment, was, arguably, quite
a reversal of his populist promises, and confirmation of what Mitch McConnell had seen early on as the silver Trump lining: "He'll
sign anything we put in front of him." With new bravado, he was encouraging partisans like Fox News to pursue an anti-Mueller
campaign on his behalf. Insiders believed that the only thing saving Mueller from being fired, and the government of the United
States from unfathomable implosion, is Trump's inability to grasp how much Mueller had on him and his family.
Steve Bannon was openly handicapping a 33.3 percent chance of impeachment, a 33.3 percent chance of resignation in the shadow
of the 25th amendment and a 33.3 percent chance that he might limp to the finish line on the strength of liberal arrogance and
weakness.
Donald Trump's small staff of factotums, advisors and family began, on Jan. 20, 2017, an experience that none of them, by any
right or logic, thought they would -- or, in many cases, should -- have, being part of a Trump presidency. Hoping for the best,
with their personal futures as well as the country's future depending on it, my indelible impression of talking to them and observing
them through much of the first year of his presidency, is that they all -- 100 percent -- came to believe he was incapable of
functioning in his job.
At Mar-a-Lago, just before the new year, a heavily made-up Trump failed to recognize a succession of old friends.
That gossipy last detail will have set off alarms in intelligence agencies around the world.
Here's the thing: even if you deny that everything Wolff writes in this adaptation from his book is true, all of it has the ring
of truth. The inside-the-White-House stuff sounds exactly like what I was hearing second-hand from an unnerved insider last spring,
though with more detail in Wolff's telling. Would you bet money that Wolff's tale is entirely a lie?
A "cease and desist" letter on Wolff and his publisher from the president's lawyer is the best possible thing a writer and a publisher
can hope for. It's pointless, but it makes it look like Wolff inserted his proton torpedo into the Trump White House's exhaust chute.
"... Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them. ..."
"... The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words. ..."
"... Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least. ..."
"... Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be "investigated." ..."
"... I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in that during the Obama administration. ..."
"... Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. . . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past." ..."
"... five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks. ..."
"... I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment. ..."
Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the
CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked
and ridiculed them.
The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media
should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition
party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words.
Joel Simon, of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told CNN that "this kind of speech not [only] undermines the work of the
media in this country, it emboldens autocratic leaders around the world." Jacob Weisberg, the head of the Slate Group, tweeted that
Bannon's comment was terrifying and "tyrannical."
Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director,
Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat
an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least.
Ever since Bannon's outburst, you can hear the media gears meshing in the effort to undermine him. In TV green rooms and at Washington
parties, I've heard journalists say outright that it's time to get him. Time magazine put a sinister-looking Bannon on its
cover, describing him as "The Great Manipulator." Walter Isaacson, a former managing editor of Time , boasted to MSNBC that
the image was in keeping with a tradition of controversial covers that put leaders in their place. "Likewise, putting [former White
House aide] Mike Deaver on the cover, the brains behind Ronald Reagan, that ended up bringing down Reagan," he told the hosts of
Morning Joe . "So you've got to have these checks and balances, whether it's the judiciary or the press."
Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week,
MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in
the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should
be "investigated."
I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in
that during the Obama administration.
It wasn't until four years after the passage of Obamacare that a journalist reported on just how powerful White House counselor
Valerie Jarrett had been in its flawed implementation. Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill
, in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group
of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much
of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly
with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything.
. . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett
inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At
this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past."
Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter
. . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position
by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment
of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received
as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks.
I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that
if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with
that sentiment.
But the media's effort to turn Bannon into an enemy of the people is veering into hysterical character assassination. The Sunday
print edition of the New York Times ran an astonishing 1,500-word story headlined: "Fascists Too Lax for a Philosopher Cited
by Bannon." (The online headline now reads, "Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists.") The Times based this
headline on what it admits was "a passing reference" in
a speech by Bannon at a Vatican conference in 2014 . In that speech, Bannon made a single mention of Julius Evola, an obscure
Italian philosopher who opposed modernity and cozied up to Mussolini's Italian Fascists.
"... Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them. ..."
"... The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words. ..."
"... Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least. ..."
"... Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be "investigated." ..."
"... I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in that during the Obama administration. ..."
"... Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. . . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past." ..."
"... five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks. ..."
"... I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment. ..."
Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the
CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked
and ridiculed them.
The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media
should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition
party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words.
Joel Simon, of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told CNN that "this kind of speech not [only] undermines the work of the
media in this country, it emboldens autocratic leaders around the world." Jacob Weisberg, the head of the Slate Group, tweeted that
Bannon's comment was terrifying and "tyrannical."
Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director,
Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat
an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least.
Ever since Bannon's outburst, you can hear the media gears meshing in the effort to undermine him. In TV green rooms and at Washington
parties, I've heard journalists say outright that it's time to get him. Time magazine put a sinister-looking Bannon on its
cover, describing him as "The Great Manipulator." Walter Isaacson, a former managing editor of Time , boasted to MSNBC that
the image was in keeping with a tradition of controversial covers that put leaders in their place. "Likewise, putting [former White
House aide] Mike Deaver on the cover, the brains behind Ronald Reagan, that ended up bringing down Reagan," he told the hosts of
Morning Joe . "So you've got to have these checks and balances, whether it's the judiciary or the press."
Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week,
MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in
the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should
be "investigated."
I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in
that during the Obama administration.
It wasn't until four years after the passage of Obamacare that a journalist reported on just how powerful White House counselor
Valerie Jarrett had been in its flawed implementation. Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill
, in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group
of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much
of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly
with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything.
. . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett
inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At
this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past."
Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter
. . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position
by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment
of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received
as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks.
I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that
if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with
that sentiment.
But the media's effort to turn Bannon into an enemy of the people is veering into hysterical character assassination. The Sunday
print edition of the New York Times ran an astonishing 1,500-word story headlined: "Fascists Too Lax for a Philosopher Cited
by Bannon." (The online headline now reads, "Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists.") The Times based this
headline on what it admits was "a passing reference" in
a speech by Bannon at a Vatican conference in 2014 . In that speech, Bannon made a single mention of Julius Evola, an obscure
Italian philosopher who opposed modernity and cozied up to Mussolini's Italian Fascists.
"... Donald Trump's small staff of factotums, advisors and family began, on Jan. 20, 2017, an experience that none of them, by any right or logic, thought they would -- or, in many cases, should -- have, being part of a Trump presidency. Hoping for the best, with their personal futures as well as the country's future depending on it, my indelible impression of talking to them and observing them through much of the first year of his presidency, is that they all -- 100 percent -- came to believe he was incapable of functioning in his job. ..."
"... At Mar-a-Lago, just before the new year, a heavily made-up Trump failed to recognize a succession of old friends. ..."
"... A "cease and desist" letter on Wolff and his publisher from the president's lawyer is the best possible thing a writer and a publisher can hope for. It's pointless, but it makes it look like Wolff inserted his proton torpedo into the Trump White House's exhaust chute. ..."
What Wolff reports in the new installment (and oh boy,
you're
gonna want to read the whole thing ) is jaw-dropping, certainly, but also weirdly familiar, the kind of things that make you
shake your head as if to say, "I knew it!" Excerpts:
Reigning over all of this was Trump, enigma, cipher and disruptor. How to get along with Trump -- who veered between a kind
of blissed-out pleasure of being in the Oval Office and a deep, childish frustration that he couldn't have what he wanted? Here
was a man singularly focused on his own needs for instant gratification, be that a hamburger, a segment on Fox & Friends or an
Oval Office photo opp. "I want a win. I want a win. Where's my win?" he would regularly declaim. He was, in words used by almost
every member of the senior staff on repeated occasions, "like a child." A chronic naysayer, Trump himself stoked constant discord
with his daily after-dinner phone calls to his billionaire friends about the disloyalty and incompetence around him. His billionaire
friends then shared this with their billionaire friends, creating the endless leaks which the president so furiously railed against.
More:
As the first year wound down, Trump finally got a bill to sign. The tax bill, his singular accomplishment, was, arguably, quite
a reversal of his populist promises, and confirmation of what Mitch McConnell had seen early on as the silver Trump lining: "He'll
sign anything we put in front of him." With new bravado, he was encouraging partisans like Fox News to pursue an anti-Mueller
campaign on his behalf. Insiders believed that the only thing saving Mueller from being fired, and the government of the United
States from unfathomable implosion, is Trump's inability to grasp how much Mueller had on him and his family.
Steve Bannon was openly handicapping a 33.3 percent chance of impeachment, a 33.3 percent chance of resignation in the shadow
of the 25th amendment and a 33.3 percent chance that he might limp to the finish line on the strength of liberal arrogance and
weakness.
Donald Trump's small staff of factotums, advisors and family began, on Jan. 20, 2017, an experience that none of them,
by any right or logic, thought they would -- or, in many cases, should -- have, being part of a Trump presidency. Hoping for the
best, with their personal futures as well as the country's future depending on it, my indelible impression of talking to them
and observing them through much of the first year of his presidency, is that they all -- 100 percent -- came to believe he was
incapable of functioning in his job.
At Mar-a-Lago, just before the new year, a heavily made-up Trump failed to recognize a succession of old friends.
That gossipy last detail will have set off alarms in intelligence agencies around the world.
Here's the thing: even if you deny that everything Wolff writes in this adaptation from his book is true, all of it has the ring
of truth. The inside-the-White-House stuff sounds exactly like what I was hearing second-hand from an unnerved insider last spring,
though with more detail in Wolff's telling. Would you bet money that Wolff's tale is entirely a lie?
A "cease and desist" letter on Wolff and his publisher from the president's lawyer is the best possible thing a writer and a publisher
can hope for. It's pointless, but it makes it look like Wolff inserted his proton torpedo into the Trump White House's exhaust chute.
Wolff reportedly recorded hundreds of hours worth of conversations with Bannon and other Trump administration officials, so good
luck with that lawsuit. If anything, as you indicate, Trump's bellowing will serve to increase sales as people rush to buy the
book Dear Leader doesn't want them to read. I know I will.
I've read the two Wolff articles and, while salacious, they don't differ in kind from numerous articles about the inside workings
of Trumpworld that have come out since the election. While the book might contain numerous exaggerations, there's no doubt lots
of truth contained therein, which is why Trump, for all his posturing, probably won't sue. As Kevin Drum writes, we won't get
lucky enough to see the ultimate feces-slinging contest between Trump and Bannon. Too bad.
If Trump has succeeded in one thing, it's in turning the presidency into the ultimate reality TV show. Unfortunately, unlike
the usual variety, this one has serious consequences for the actual world.
"Would you bet money that Wolff's tale is entirely a lie?"
On the other hand, how much money would you bet as to what percent of Wolff's writing about Trump is entirely accurate? Ten
percent? 30 percent? 60% percent? I hate to see this type of post on Rod's blog. It's tabloid quality and in all probability includes
scandalous information. You can argue with my conclusion, but can you prove otherwise? This post is disappointing.
[NFR: A prominent pro-Trump conservative with White House access told me two months into the Trump administration that the
place was a "snake pit" with all Trump's advisers out to destroy each other, and an incompetent and disconnected president at
the center of the maelstrom. "All he wants to do is watch TV," said my source, who predicted disaster, and that GOP bigs would
blame the eventual collapse of the Trump presidency on Christian conservatives, because they were suckers, and the only ones who
had no wider support in the Establishment. I believed him then and that has something to do with why I believe Wolff. -- RD]
I never condone trial and conviction by innuendo and implication. I will, however, in this case engage in a bit of personal gloating
that the King of "fake news!" accusations is having his own credible (better than plausible) statements of the recent and not
so recent past coming back to haunt him.
Trump is more than a symptom of the degeneration of American politics and society. He is the poster child, nay the divine avatar
of my patron deity Momus, heaping scorn and ridicule on every aspect of America that so richly deserves it.
Upon his certification as the Republican nominee for the office of President of the United States, I publicly (and with significant
backlash) predicted that Trump was going to be the enema so sorely needed by a constipated American electorate, gladly feasting
on the indigestible roughage of decades of partisan polarizing rhetoric. The first flood of expulsion is already in full swing.
It is odorous, scummy, and glorious.
The story of Momus is sketchy at best, but what is known explains the sketchiness: Zeus was well-entertained by Momus' take-downs
of the other deities, until the day Momus set his sights on Zeus, and did his job too well. Zeus banished Momus, who quickly faded
into obscurity (and never had much in the way of a human following anyway).
I see Trump on that very same path, the only problem being that there is no Zeus to act decisively at the appropriate moment.
Anyone who wants the job of President is a little crazy. Personally, I think crazy is fun. Sanity is too boring for words but
nothing here points to crazy at all. It's all seriously inside baseball and there is nothing there that the voters give a damn
about.
You still don't get it. His supporters in their many millions love Trump for the very reasons you can't stand him.
I am with Matt Yglesias on this Is there really anything new here? Doesn't Daniel Drezner have a twitter feed of 200 occasions
where Trump staff is treating him like a toddler? Heck, just read Trumps's twitter feed for evidence! (Are you going to watch
the Trumpies on Monday 5:00?)
The Wolff book is like the Steele dossier with lots salacious over the top stories but nothing really new.
None of this has "the ring of truth". What it does have is the ring of propaganda. I suppose it might appear to have the ring
of truth if one was predisposed to believe the worst kind of caricatures of Trump.
It would be very easy to rewrite these excerpts using the same factual statements but framing them in a positive light rather
than the negative spin preferred by Mr. Wolff. As a writer yourself, Rod, you should know this.
The last part, about Trump being heavily made-up and "failing to recognize old friends", is obviously blatant disinformation
intended to undermine the administration. Publishing it is an act of political sabotage and borders on treasonous.
This is some deep-state *excrement* we're dealing with here, Rod, and I'm honestly surprised you've been suckered by it.
I have no idea if some of the more eye-opening quotes are legit or if Wolff is a fantasist, but what in God's name was the WH's
thought process in letting a journalist just hang out in the West Wing for months on end? The incompetence is staggering.
A "cease and desist" letter on Wolff and his publisher from the president's lawyer is the best possible thing a writer and
a publisher can hope for. It's pointless, but it makes it look like Wolff inserted his proton torpedo into the Trump White House's
exhaust chute.
Of course, "small thermal exhaust port, right below the main port" is one of the dirtiest lines in cinema, as brilliantly exposed
in this college production of Verily, a New Hope , a brilliant Shakespearean retelling of Star Wars that was
publish'd some years back:
(NSFW, skip to 40 minutes in for the relevant scene)
But a "cease and desist letter" against Bannon, I think, would be pointless. Wolff's book is in the can already. When it comes
to what Bannon knows, the horse has already left the barn.
"Does anyone STILL has to justify having voted for Hillary?"
Um, no.
And nobody has to justify voting for Trump. Not if we're being fair. Particularly not in the light of a book that hadn't been
written yet.
You don't want to be fair though. You want to come here and take over the conversation and make certain it's always you that's
the center of attention.
Bernie–it makes no difference how much is actual truth in Wolff's writings. The fact is, it all is horribly plausible, based on
what we've already seen from this clown car of an administration. Screeching about said reports as being "tabloid!" doesn't work
very well in such a case .
And do you think that Trump is ever going to allow himself to go under the laser beam of discovery if he DOES actually insist
on suing for libel? Ho ho ho.
I wouldn't worry too much about the GOP "bigs" blaming Christians, and I would encourage you not to let them get away with scapegoating
social conservatives who have been betrayed and abused enough over the years by the establishment. They don't need Rod Dreher
piling on. Trump is in fact a creation of the GOP bigs; he is only in the presidency in the first place because they made a point
of ignoring for decades the legitimate concerns and grievances of the typical non-rich Republican voter.
[NFR: My source is a conservative Christian, and he was not saying that blaming us (himself) is fair, but that it is going
to be what the GOP establishment does to shift blame from itself. -- RD]
I can't see the "gossipy last detail" causing any alarm, nor any of the rest of these gossipy details. What is so "jaw-dropping"
about an admittedly unreliable reporter sprinkling a few context-free alleged quotes into a substrate of invective in order to
destroy Trump? My jaw dropped into a yawn.
As for the book, there is just no way to know to what extent the claims are colored by embellishment, exaggeration, subjective
interpretation, cognitive bias, quotes taken out of context and outright lies.
I'm not sure how much of the allegations are true, but regardless, most of this is typical Trump street theater. He's provoking
chaos and allowing his adversaries (especially the news media) to be focused on distractions. Meanwhile, he and his administration
are getting things done behind the scenes.
I have no way of knowing this, but my instinct is that this is a set-up, and Trump and Bannon are on the same side. There are
plenty of good political reasons why Trump would rather the two of them be seen as enemies. I could be completely wrong, and there
really is bad blood between them. But it just seems so contrived. One more laser pointer to distract all the cats. And even if
it is all genuine and legitimate, Trump will still use it to his advantage.
Remember when the whole world was in danger of nuclear war because of a Trump tweet? That was, what, two days ago? Trump is
"crazy" like a fox, he enjoys being underestimated by his opponents, and he is engaging in very effective strategies that allow
him to accomplish a great deal.
Does anyone else notice that the economy is improving, burdensome regulations are being undone, government corruption is being
exposed, ISIS is virtually defeated on the ground, North Korea is reaching out to South Korea, etc.? Trump is a very peculiar
president, but he is a lot more intelligent than people give him credit for.
I personally think that the Trump era is very much like the book of Esther. The plot to kill Trump and his supporters will
eventually trap and kill the plotters themselves. (I mean "kill" only in the political sense.) The Russia-collusion conspiracy
is the most obvious example.
Michael Wolff (born August 27, 1953)[1] is an American author, essayist, and journalist, and a regular columnist and contributor
to USA Today, The Hollywood Reporter, and the UK edition of GQ.[2] He has received two National Magazine Awards, a Mirror Award, and
has authored seven books, including Burn Rate (1998) about his own dot-com company, and The Man Who Owns the News (2008), a
biography of Rupert Murdoch. He co-founded the news aggregation website Newser and is a former editor of Adweek.
Michael Wolff was born in Paterson, New Jersey, the son of Lewis Allen Wolff (October 10, 1920 - February 18, 1984)[5], an
advertising professional, and Marguerite "Van" (Vanderwerf) Wolff (November 7, 1925 – September 17, 2012)[6] a reporter for Paterson
Evening News.[7][8] He attended Columbia University in New York City, and graduated from Vassar College in 1975.[9] While a student
at Columbia, he worked for The New York Times as a copy boy
How Michael Wolf managed to tape people in WH?
Notable quotes:
"... "Michael Wolff has tapes to back up quotes in his incendiary book -- dozens of hours of them," Allen reports. "Among the sources he taped, I'm told, are Steve Bannon and former White House deputy chief of staff Katie Walsh." ..."
"... Soon after the Axios report dropped Thursday morning, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced a ban on personal cell phones inside the White House -- "for both guests and staff." ..."
"... Wolff wrote in The Hollywood Reporter that he collected the material for his book as a "fly on the wall" over 18 months. Allen says that the White House concedes that Wolff received access to the building less than 20 times since Trump's inauguration. ..."
Mike Allen writes at Axios that Michael Wolff,
author of Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, has "dozens of hours" of
recordings to corroborate the controversial quotes attributed to senior White House personnel
in the new book -- including former White House Chief Strategist and Breitbart executive
chairman Stephen K. Bannon.
"Michael Wolff has tapes to back up quotes in his incendiary book -- dozens of hours of
them," Allen reports. "Among the sources he taped, I'm told, are Steve Bannon and former White
House deputy chief of staff Katie Walsh."
Soon after the Axios report dropped Thursday morning, White House Press Secretary Sarah
Huckabee Sanders announced a
ban on personal cell phones inside the White House -- "for both guests and staff."
Wolff wrote in
The Hollywood Reporter that he collected the material for his book as a "fly on the wall"
over 18 months. Allen says that the White House concedes that Wolff received access to the
building less than 20 times since Trump's inauguration.
"... "I support President Trump and the platform upon which he was elected," Mercer said. "My family and I have not communicated with Steve Bannon in many months and have provided no financial support to his political agenda, nor do we support his recent actions and statements." ..."
"... Per a Wall Street Journal report, the board of the far-right Breitbart News is also considering ousting Bannon from his position as executive chairman there. ..."
Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has apparently lost the support of billionaire Republican donor and longtime
Donald Trump supporter Rebekah Mercer.
Mercer made her differences with Bannon clear in a statement to The Washington Post on Thursday.
"I support President Trump and the platform upon which he was elected," Mercer said. "My family and I have not communicated
with Steve Bannon in many months and have provided no financial support to his political agenda, nor do we support his recent actions
and statements."
Per a Wall Street Journal report, the board of the far-right Breitbart News is also considering ousting Bannon from his position
as executive chairman there.
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders encouraged the move during Thursday's press briefing.
"I certainly think that it's something they should look at and consider," she said of Bannon's potential dismissal.
Former Trump Roger Stone was on Fox News' Tucker Carlson Tonight to refute Steve Bannon's statements, and just about everything
else in the upcoming book "Fire and Fury".
The ongoing feud between Steve Bannon and various members of Trump's inner circle, including
family members Jared Kushner and Donald Trump Jr., is hardly a secret (we wrote about it here:
Steve Bannon In "Self-Imposed Exile" After Disputes With Trump's Inner Circle ). But, if
The Guardian 's reporting on excerpts from an explosive new book penned by Michael Wolff
are even directionally accurate, then Bannon has just taken his White House feud to a whole new
level.
According to The Guardian, which apparently got its hands on a copy of "Fire and Fury" ahead
of its expected release next week, Bannon unloads on Don Jr. and Kushner saying that their
meeting with
Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya at Trump Tower in New York was "treasonous" and/or
"unpatriotic" and the FBI should have been called immediately.
Donald Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon has described the Trump Tower meeting
between the president's son and a group of Russians during the 2016 election campaign as
"treasonous" and "unpatriotic", according to an explosive new book seen by the Guardian.
The meeting was revealed by the New York Times in July last year, prompting Trump Jr to
say no consequential material was produced. Soon after, Wolff writes, Bannon remarked
mockingly: "The three senior guys in the campaign thought it was a good idea to meet with a
foreign government inside Trump Tower in the conference room on the 25th floor – with
no lawyers. They didn't have any lawyers.
"Even if you thought that this was not treasonous, or unpatriotic, or bad shit, and I
happen to think it's all of that, you should have called the FBI immediately."
Bannon went on, Wolff writes, to say that if any such meeting had to take place, it should
have been set up "in a Holiday Inn in Manchester, New Hampshire, with your lawyers who meet
with these people". Any information, he said, could then be "dump[ed] down to Breitbart or
something like that, or maybe some other more legitimate publication".
... ... ...
Trump is not spared in the new book either. According to The Guardian, Wolff writes that
Thomas Barrack Jr, the billionaire founder of Colony Capital who counts himself as one of
Trump's earliest supporters, allegedly told a friend: "He's not only crazy, he's stupid."
All of which should make for some very entertaining Trump tweets once the book drops next
week.
Meanwhile, even Drudge couldn't avoid getting dragged into the fray and on Wednesday morning
tweeted: "No wonder schizophrenic Steve Bannon has been walking around with a small army of
bodyguards..."
Bannon is being quoted in the Guardian from his forthcoming book, paraphrasing: "they had
(sic) top officials from the new administration meeting with Russians in Trump Tower and
nobody thought to have a lawyer present? The minimum they could've done was call the
FBI."
This statement doesn't pass the smell test or Bannon is smoking some Colorado grass. One
minute he's against deep state and the next minute he wants to call the FBI? I don't think
so.
She called the controversy a "very well-orchestrated story concocted by one particular
manipulator," whom she identified repeatedly as American businessman Bill Browder.
Browder was once the biggest foreign investor in Russia, but he has since become a vocal
critic of the country's leadership and has clashed with Putin's inner circle.
Browder was a driving force behind the Magnitsky Act, a U.S. law passed in 2012 that imposes
economic sanctions and travel restrictions on Russians named as human rights abusers. Browder
believes it is Putin's No. 1 priority to get the U.S. to lift the sanctions imposed under the
act, which currently affect 44 Russians.
In her interview with Russian government-funded RT, Veselnitskaya called Browder "one of the
greatest experts in the field of manipulating the mass media," and said she had "no doubt that
this whole information campaign is being spun, encouraged and organized by that very man as
revenge" for a legal settlement earlier this year which effectively saw his efforts to expose
alleged Russian money-laundering in the U.S. hit a brick wall.
During Browder's appearance on "CBS This Morning" Tuesday, co-host Charlie Rose called
attention to Browder's description of Veselnitskaya as "probably the most aggressive person I
have ever encountered in all of my contacts with Russians" -- to which Browder replied, "Yes,
she's a remarkable person. I should caveat that: she's not aggressive in a physical
way."
Bannon, speaking to author Michael Wolff, warned that the investigation into alleged
collusion with the Kremlin will focus on money laundering and predicted: "They're going to
crack Don Junior like an egg on national TV."
bannon hasn't lost his mind. he never had one. he is just another wacko evangelical
wingnut of the 4th turning theory who think they will witness the second coming of Christ
this turning if only they can make enough war in the Mideast with the goal of getting Israel
directly involved since their participation is a prerequisite.
Former Trump Chief Strategist Steve Bannon says the Mueller investigation is targeting the alleged "greasy" money laundering
of Trump associates like Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort as a path to attack President Trump, according to a new book by Michael
Wolff called Fire and Fury: Inside
the Trump White House .
Bannon has
criticised Trump's decision to fire Comey . In Wolff's book, obtained by the Guardian ahead of publication from a bookseller
in New England, he suggests White House hopes for a quick end to the Mueller investigation are gravely misplaced.
"You realise where this is going," he is quoted as saying. "This is all about money laundering. Mueller chose [senior prosecutor
Andrew] Weissmann first
and he is a money-laundering guy. Their path to fucking Trump goes right through Paul Manafort, Don Jr and Jared Kushner It's
as plain as a hair on your face."
Last month it was reported that federal prosecutors
had subpoenaed records
from Deutsche Bank, the German financial institution that has lent hundreds of millions of dollars to the Kushner property
empire. Bannon continues: "It goes through Deutsche Bank and all the Kushner shit. The Kushner shit is greasy. They're going to
go right through that. They're going to roll those two guys up and say play me or trade me."
Scorning apparent White House insouciance, Bannon reaches for a hurricane metaphor: "They're sitting on a beach trying to stop
a Category Five."
Economic nationalism in key ideas is close to Mussolini version of corporatism. It is about
the alliance of state with large corporation but of less favorable to large corporations terms
then under neoliberalism, which is a flavor of corporatism as well, but extremely favorable to
the interests of transactionals.
So grossly simplifying, this is Mussolini version of corporatism (Make Italy Great Again),
minus foreign wars, minus ethnic component (replacing it with more modern "cultural nationalism"
agenda).
Bannon is definitely overrated. It is jobs that matter and he has no real plan. Relying on
tax cutting and deregulation is not a plan. In this sense, yes, he is a paper tiger. And not a
real nationalist, but some kind of castrated variety.
One thing that plays into Bannon hands in the DemoRats (neoliberal Democrats led by
Hillary Clinton) were completely discredited during the last elections.
Notable quotes:
"... But his statements show that it's all bluster and no real strategy. Democrats seem poised to take back Congress precisely because of Republican extremism, not because institutional Republicans are inadequately racist and nationalist. ..."
"... Like Karl Rove before him, Steven Bannon is a paper tiger. ..."
There is a tendency on the left to overestimate the abilities of conservative campaign gurus
and spinmeisters after a bitter defeat. In the aughts, Karl Rove was seen as the Svengali
mastermind of Republican politics, a nefarious force smarter and more cunning than all the
left's braintrust put together. It turned out not to be true. Karl Rove didn't have "the math"
and never really did: Rove mostly got lucky by a combination of butterfly ballots in Florida,
and happening to hold power during a terrorist attack that saw Democrats cowed into submission
rather than holding the president and his team accountable for their failure to protect the
country.
Steve Bannon is taking on a similar mystique for some. But Bannon is no more special than
Rove...
... ... ...
Bannon is
going
to war " with the GOP establishment, even going so far as to countermand Trump's own
endorsement in the Alabama Senate race and force the president to back a loser.
But his statements show that it's all bluster and no real strategy. Democrats seem
poised to take back Congress precisely because of Republican extremism, not because
institutional Republicans are inadequately racist and nationalist.
And his prediction to the Values Voter Summit that Trump will
win 400 electoral votes in 2020 is simply preposterous on its face. It's no better than
even odds that Trump will even finish out his term, much less sweep to a Reaganesque landslide
in three years. During the same speech, Bannon quipped a line destined to be fodder for the
inevitable 2018 campaign commercials accusing Trump of actively blowing up the ACA
exchanges and driving up premiums in a bid to kill the program.
Like Karl Rove before him, Steven Bannon is a paper tiger. Democrats need only
muster courage, conviction and hard work to teach him the same lesson they taught Rove in 2006.
David Atkins is a writer, activist and
research professional living in Santa Barbara. He is a contributor to the Washington Monthly's
Political Animal and president of The Pollux Group, a qualitative research firm.
Bastard neoliberalism by Trump (and Bannon) are inconsistent. You can't be half pregnant -- to be
a neoliberal (promote deregulation, regressive taxes) and be anti-immigration and anti-globalist. In
this sense words Trump is doomed: neoliberal are determined to get rid of him.
Reagan was a former governor of California before becoming the President. hardly a complete outsider.
Trump was an outsider more similar to Barak Obama in a sense that he has no political record and can
ride on backlash against neoliberal globalization, especially outsourcing and offshoring and unlimited
immigration, as well as ride anti-globalism sentiments and popular protest against foreign wars. Only
quickly betraying those promised afterward. Much like king of "bait and switch" Obama .
Notable quotes:
"... Among the signature issues of Trumpian populism is economic nationalism, a new trade policy designed to prosper Americans first. ..."
"... Reagan preached free trade, but when Harley-Davidson was in danger of going under because of Japanese dumping of big bikes, he slammed a 50 percent tariff on Japanese motorcycles. Though a free trader by philosophy, Reagan was at heart an economic patriot. ..."
"... He accepted an amnesty written by Congress for 3 million people in the country illegally, but Reagan also warned prophetically that a country that can't control its borders isn't really a country any more. ..."
"... Reagan and Trump both embraced the Eisenhower doctrine of "peace through strength." And, like Ike, both built up the military. ..."
"... Both also believed in cutting tax rates to stimulate the economy and balance the federal budget through rising revenues rather than cutting programs like Medicare and Social Security. ..."
"... Both believed in engaging with the superpower rival of the day -- the Soviet Union in Reagan's day, Russia and China in Trump's time. ..."
"... As Ingraham writes, Trump_vs_deep_state is rooted as much in the populist-nationalist campaigns of the 1990s, and post-Cold War issues as economic patriotism, border security, immigration control and "America First," as it is in the Reaganite issues of the 1980s. ..."
"... Coming up on one year since his election, Trump is besieged by a hostile press and united Democratic Party. This city hates him. While his executive actions are impressive, his legislative accomplishments are not. His approval ratings have lingered in the mid-30s. He has lost half a dozen senior members of his original White House staff, clashed openly with his own Cabinet and is at war with GOP leaders on the Hill. ..."
"... And both are fans of the tinkle-down theory of economics, where the govt cuts taxes on the rich and increases them on the poor and middle class, since the rich will do a better job of spreading around the extra money they get to keep, thereby stoking the economy, supposedly. Or as 'Poppy' Bush called it, "voodoo economics." ..."
"... It's a failed regressive tax program that only creates more billionaires while the number of poor swells, due to an influx of the steadily declining middle-class. ..."
"... Bizarrely, comically ignorant of reality. Though the really bizarre thing is the degree to which the same obtusely ignorant world-view permeates the establishment media and the political establishment. ..."
"... There is arguably a fundamental difference here, that in Reagan's day there was a clear ideological threat from the Soviet Union, which was still (albeit increasingly nominally) in the grip of an aggressively destabilising universalist ideology, communism. Reagan's opposition to the Soviet Union was very much bound up in resistance to that ideology, even if that resistance was often as much a pretext as a real motive. ..."
"... Today neither Russia nor China subscribes to any such universalist ideology. It is the US, today, that seeks to impose its liberal democratic political correctness ideologies and its manufactured taboos upon the world and which harasses and menaces any country that tries to live differently. ..."
"... As for Trump supposedly being wrapped up in "America First", that's particularly comical this week as he demonstrates that his idea of "America First" is acting as Israel's bitch, and as he makes ever louder noises about undermining the Iran deal – a policy as clearly counterproductive to any interest plausibly attributable to the American nation (as opposed to the identity lobbies that run the US government politics and media) as it is self-evidently in the self-perceived interests of the Israel Lobby and the foreign country that lobby serves. ..."
"... Trump is an egotistical jackass, nothing else. A liar from the git-go, and a completely ineffective leader, ideologue and President. He's not going to last much longer. I will take note that he did, temporarily, save us from the madness of the Hillary moiety. But, he has molted into a complete fuckup. ..."
"... Goodbye, good riddance. Let's get ready to deal with the next wacko -- Pence. ..."
"... you're forgetting that Trump wasn't a war monger while on the campaign trail, far from it. Which is the only reason he won the election. In other words he fooled just enough people (like you and me) long enough to get elected. Same thing happened with peace candidate, and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Hussein Obama. It's clearly a rigged process. ..."
Both men were outsiders, and neither a career politician. Raised Democratic, Reagan had been a
Hollywood actor, union leader and voice of GE, before running for governor of California.
Trump is out of Queens, a builder-businessman in a Democratic city whose Republican credentials
were suspect at best when he rode down that elevator at Trump Tower. Both took on the Republican
establishment of their day, and humiliated it.
Among the signature issues of Trumpian populism is economic nationalism, a new trade policy
designed to prosper Americans first.
Reagan preached free trade, but when Harley-Davidson was in danger of going under because
of Japanese dumping of big bikes, he slammed a 50 percent tariff on Japanese motorcycles. Though
a free trader by philosophy, Reagan was at heart an economic patriot.
He accepted an amnesty written by Congress for 3 million people in the country illegally,
but Reagan also warned prophetically that a country that can't control its borders isn't really a
country any more.
Reagan and Trump both embraced the Eisenhower doctrine of "peace through strength." And, like
Ike, both built up the military.
Both also believed in cutting tax rates to stimulate the economy and balance the federal budget
through rising revenues rather than cutting programs like Medicare and Social Security.
Both believed in engaging with the superpower rival of the day -- the Soviet Union in Reagan's
day, Russia and China in Trump's time.
And both were regarded in this capital city with a cosmopolitan condescension bordering on contempt.
"An amiable dunce" said a Great Society Democrat of Reagan.
The awesome victories Reagan rolled up, a 44-state landslide in 1980 and a 49-state landslide
in 1984, induced some second thoughts among Beltway elites about whether they truly spoke for America.
Trump's sweep of the primaries and startling triumph in the Electoral College caused the same consternation.
However, as the Great Depression, New Deal and World War II represented a continental divide in
history between what came before and what came after, so, too, did the end of the Cold War and the
Reagan era.
As Ingraham writes, Trump_vs_deep_state is rooted as much in the populist-nationalist campaigns of the
1990s, and post-Cold War issues as economic patriotism, border security, immigration control and
"America First," as it is in the Reaganite issues of the 1980s.
Which bring us to the present, with our billionaire president, indeed, at the barricades.
The differences between Trump in his first year and Reagan in 1981 are stark. Reagan had won a
landslide. The attempt on his life in April and the grace with which he conducted himself had earned
him a place in the hearts of his countrymen. He not only showed spine in giving the air traffic controllers
48 hours to get back to work, and then discharging them when they defied him, he enacted the largest
tax cut in U.S. history with the aid of boll weevil Democrats in the House.
Coming up on one year since his election, Trump is besieged by a hostile press and united
Democratic Party. This city hates him. While his executive actions are impressive, his legislative
accomplishments are not. His approval ratings have lingered in the mid-30s. He has lost half a dozen
senior members of his original White House staff, clashed openly with his own Cabinet and is at war
with GOP leaders on the Hill.
And both are fans of the tinkle-down theory of economics, where the govt cuts taxes
on the rich and increases them on the poor and middle class, since the rich will do a better job
of spreading around the extra money they get to keep, thereby stoking the economy, supposedly.
Or as 'Poppy' Bush called it, "voodoo economics."
It's a failed regressive tax program that only creates more billionaires while the number
of poor swells, due to an influx of the steadily declining middle-class.
The only parts of the economy it helps are the builders of luxury mansions, antique and pricey
art dealers, and the makers of luxury autos and private jets.
when the US Government is trying to prevent alien forces from interfering in our electoral
process
Bizarrely, comically ignorant of reality. Though the really bizarre thing is the degree
to which the same obtusely ignorant world-view permeates the establishment media and the political
establishment.
Two pieces here at Unz you ought to read, and fully take on board the implications of, if you
want to even begin the process of grasping reality, rather than living in the manufactured fantasy
you appear to inhabit at the moment:
Both believed in engaging with the superpower rival of the day -- the Soviet Union in
Reagan's day, Russia and China in Trump's time.
There is arguably a fundamental difference here, that in Reagan's day there was a clear
ideological threat from the Soviet Union, which was still (albeit increasingly nominally) in the
grip of an aggressively destabilising universalist ideology, communism. Reagan's opposition to
the Soviet Union was very much bound up in resistance to that ideology, even if that resistance
was often as much a pretext as a real motive.
Today neither Russia nor China subscribes to any such universalist ideology. It is the
US, today, that seeks to impose its liberal democratic political correctness ideologies and its
manufactured taboos upon the world and which harasses and menaces any country that tries to live
differently.
As for Trump supposedly being wrapped up in "America First", that's particularly comical
this week as he demonstrates that his idea of "America First" is acting as Israel's bitch, and
as he makes ever louder noises about undermining the Iran deal – a policy as clearly counterproductive
to any interest plausibly attributable to the American nation (as opposed to the identity lobbies
that run the US government politics and media) as it is self-evidently in the self-perceived interests
of the Israel Lobby and the foreign country that lobby serves.
Here's the German government being unusually blunt yesterday about the stupidity of the Trump
regime's seeming plans in this regard:
German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel on Thursday said that any move by US President Donald
Trump's administration to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal would drive a wedge between Europe
and the US.
"It's imperative that Europe sticks together on this issue," Gabriel told Germany's RND
newspaper group. "We also have to tell the Americans that their behavior on the Iran issue
will drive us Europeans into a common position with Russia and China against the USA."
It's difficult to know whether the likes of Gabriel actually believe all the boilerplate nonsense
they talk about a supposed Iranian nuclear program – the real reason the European nations want
the deal to continue is that it stopped them having to pretend to believe all the outright lies
the US told about Iran, and having to kowtow t0 costly and counterproductive sanctions against
Iran that did immense general harm for the benefit only of Israel and Saudi Arabia and their US
stooges.
The US pulling out of the deal would at least bring that issue of US dishonesty on Iran and
past European appeasement of it to a head, I suppose.
Trump is an egotistical jackass, nothing else. A liar from the git-go, and a completely ineffective
leader, ideologue and President. He's not going to last much longer. I will take note that he
did, temporarily, save us from the madness of the Hillary moiety. But, he has molted into a complete
fuckup.
Goodbye, good riddance. Let's get ready to deal with the next wacko -- Pence.
Assuming they won't kill Pence with the same bomb.
I will take note that he did, temporarily, save us from the madness of the Hillary moiety.
Often I feel like it'd be better if Hillary did the same insane policies. It's always worse
when our guy does something wrong, and better when the hated enemy does it.
Hillary was a danger that she would start WW3 in Syria, but I don't think we can be certain
she'd have started it. Given how risk-averse women are in general, I think the only issue was
whether the Russians could've made it clear that shooting at Russian soldiers would mean war with
Russia. And I think even Hillary's advisers would've blinked.
On the other hand, I don't think Hillary would be nearly as insane on North Korea or Iran.
As a bonus, she would be accelerating the demise of the US, by introducing ever more insane domestic
policies, things like gay, transsexual and female quotas in US Special Forces. This would ultimately
be a good thing, destroying or weakening US power which is currently only used to evil ends in
the world.
Unfortunately I can see Orbán and the Poles torpedoing a common EU stance. I'm sure that will
be the price for Netanyahu's meeting with the V4 leaders a few months ago.
I think one good thing would be if US conservatives stopped their Reagan worship. He was certainly
not a bad person, but he allowed the amnesty to happen, couldn't stop the sanctions on Apartheid
South Africa, didn't (or couldn't?) do anything against the MLK cult becoming a state religion,
and started the free trade and tax cuts cults, he's also responsible for promoting the neocons
to positions of power. So overall he was a mixed bag from a nationalist conservative viewpoint.
Private citizens are forbidden to ask for help from a foreign country, when the US Government
is trying to prevent alien forces from interfering in our electoral process.
You forgot the Clintons, Bush, McCain, Romney, and Obama. China and Israel worked on behalf
of all five of them, even though three of them lost
Yes, that's quite possible, but a common EU stance is not really all that important. What really
matters is how far the Germans, and to a lesser extent the less relevant but still big European
nations such as France and Italy and the more subservient US tool, the UK, are prepared to continue
to kowtow to US and Israeli dishonesty on Iran.
All the signs seem to be that repudiating the deal and trying to return to the days of the
aggressive and counter-productive US-imposed sanctions will be a step too far for many of those
players.
As a bonus, she would be accelerating the demise of the US, by introducing ever more insane
domestic policies, things like gay, transsexual and female quotas in US Special Forces. This
would ultimately be a good thing, destroying or weakening US power which is currently only
used to evil ends in the world.
Actually I suspect that repudiating the JCPOA, whether openly or by de facto breach, will go
immensely farther, and much faster, towards destroying practical US influence and therefore power
globally than any of those domestic policies, at least in the short run.
You can see that Trump is at least dimly aware of that likelihood from the way he keeps bottling
and postponing the decision, despite his clearly evident and desperate desire to please his pro-Israeli
and anti-Iranian advisers and instincts.
On the other hand, I don't think Hillary would be nearly as insane on North Korea or Iran.
An election of Hillary meant open borders. That is official, rapid and deliberate national
suicide. All foreign policy issues pale before such a horror.
1) There's a chance foreign policy insanity starts a nuclear war, in which case all domestic
policy issues will pale before such horror.
2) The US already has de facto open borders. Why does it matter if it becomes majority nonwhite
in 30 or just 20 years?
3) For non-American whites, it's better the earlier the US sphere disintegrates. I bet you
it's better for American whites as well. As long as this political/cultural center holds, the
rot cannot be stopped.
I watched the movie Independence Day last night: Can we have that guy for President after
Trump, or do we have to have an obligatory Democrat (Chelsea Clinton?) President for the next
8 years?
An election of Hillary meant open borders. That is official, rapid and deliberate national
suicide. All foreign policy issues pale before such a horror.
That's understandable, but obviously the calculation must be somewhat different from a non-US
perspective. Given how strongly many white Americans are in favor of pro-war policies and mindless
Israel worship (how many US blacks or Hispanics care about Israel or confronting Iran?), I'm not
even sure nationalists in Europe should really lament the Hispanicization of the US. It might
at least have a positive effect in restricting US interventionism and eroding US power. The sooner
the US is unable to continue with its self-appointed role as a global redeemer nation, the better.
History repeats first as tragedy (crushing the spoiled unionized mostly white air traffic controllers),
then as farce (crushing the spoiled unionized mostly afro NFL jocks). Reagan was at least an American
Firster. Trumpenstein is an obvious traitorous Izzie Firster, with little concern for the so-called
deplorables except to convert them into deployables at the service of his jooie sponsors. Maybe
Paddy should have titled his screed "Heir to Begin, not Reagan"?
Pat Buchanan points out that " it is far more likely that a major war would do for the Trump presidency
and his place in history what it did for Presidents Wilson, Truman, LBJ and George W. Bush."
As for President Trump; Let us hope that war DOES NOT BECOME "The Last Refuge Of This Scoundrel"!
Rubio was far more of a war-monger than Trump, and he won the primaries in the majority non-White
jurisdictions (Washington DC, Puerto Rico).
If only non-White votes were counted, Hillary Clinton would have been elected unanimously by
the electoral college, and Hillary is more of a war-monger than Trump is.
The few reliable voices for foreign policy sanity in congress, such as Senator Rand Paul and
Congressmen Walter Jones, John Duncan, Thomas Massie, and Justin Amash, represent overwhelmingly
White, Protestant, old-stock American districts.
Rubio was far more of a war-monger than Trump, and he won the primaries in the majority
non-White jurisdictions (Washington DC, Puerto Rico).
Maybe, but is there any data indicating many blacks in Washington DC actually voted in the
Republican primaries? Why would they when most of them are a solid Democrat voting block? I'd
guess Rubio got his votes from white elites in DC.
As for Puerto Rico, I didn't know they actually have primaries, seems odd given they don't vote
in US presidential elections.
Hillary is more of a war-monger than Trump is.
Hillary was horrible all around, and I agree she might well have been disastrous as president
given her dangerous proposals for no-fly zones in Syria, and the potential of conflict with Russia
this entailed. But I'm no longer sure Trump is really better regarding foreign policy. His behaviour
on the North Korea issue is irresponsible imo, and his willingness to wreck the nuclear deal with
Iran at the behest of neoconservatives and Zionist donors like Sheldon Adelson is a big fat minus
in my view. Sorry, but I think you guys who hoped for something different have all been (neo-)conned.
Reagan said: My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation
that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.
Trump said: We will totally destroy North Korea if the United States is forced to defend
itself or its allies.
The only similarities I see between Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump is that both live (lived) in
a sort of la-la land, totally out of touch with reality. The only difference between them is that
Reagan had sensible people around him (like Pat Buchannan) who wrote good speeches and make good
decisions which he took full credit for. Trump, on the other hand delivers abbreviated, one-sentence
speeches via Twitter while surrounded by mental midgets with military minds.
There is arguably a fundamental difference here, that in Reagan's day there was a clear
ideological threat from the Soviet Union, which was still (albeit increasingly nominally) in
the grip of an aggressively destabilising universalist ideology, communism
Not really Randal. The Cold War was an invented war like the War on Terror that replaced just
in the nick of time, and for the same purpose, which is to justify unlimited defense budgets necessary
to sustain a bloated MIC that would not otherwise exist.
Rubio was far more of a war-monger than Trump, and he won the primaries in the majority
non-White jurisdictions (Washington DC, Puerto Rico).
but you're forgetting that Trump wasn't a war monger while on the campaign trail, far from
it. Which is the only reason he won the election. In other words he fooled just enough people
(like you and me) long enough to get elected. Same thing happened with peace candidate, and Nobel
Peace Prize winner, Hussein Obama. It's clearly a rigged process.
Not really Randal. The Cold War was an invented war like the War on Terror that replaced
just in the nick of time, and for the same purpose, which is to justify unlimited defense budgets
necessary to sustain a bloated MIC that would not otherwise exist.
Well, yes and no. In both cases. It really is more complicated than that.
Reagan didn't undo Arab Israel Camp David Peace Treaty He didn't keep the Israeli side and undo
the Egyptian side of the American obligation . He kept both.
Trump is dangerous malevolent anti-American and anti- anything that hurts his ego or pocket
. He has malcontent displaced sycophants as inner circle supporters who want a piece in the pie
denied to them by the establishment .
Here is a quote from antiwar -"In other words, it's all about the war that Trump and his still-loyal
lieutenant Steve Bannon, assisted by UN ambassador Nikki Haley, have declared on the "deep state."
Also, Trump and Bannon aren't really interested in draining the foreign policy swamp in DC.
They simply want to install their own cronies who will ensure that war and globalization benefit
them rather than Kissinger and his ilk. It's a shell game designed to fool Trump's base, but the
rest of the world has kept its eye on the ball."
http://original.antiwar.com/feffer/2017/10/13/trump-signaling-unprecedented-right-turn-foreign-policy/
This war between elites have been predicted by a CT professor in an article in 2016 , to get
more serious and dangerous by 2020 . The fights among elites are not new but another pathway an
empire takes additionally to the final fate of the destruction from within
"A large class of disgruntled elite-wannabes, often well-educated and highly capable,
has been denied access to elite positions."
Another visible sign of increasing intra-elite competition and political polarization is the
fragmentation of political parties
cliodynamic research on past societies demonstrates that elite overproduction is by far the
most important of the three main historical drivers of social instability and political violence
(see Secular Cycles for this analysis).
But the other two factors in the model, popular immiseration (the stagnation and decline of
living standards) and declining fiscal health of the state (resulting from falling state revenues
and rising expenses) are also important contributors.
Ideally Europe would be strong together, without US and more sane policies on morals and immigration.
Yes v4 is connected to CC, Neocon, Zios.
While Polands stance on immigration, and trying to hold on to old values is good, problem is
depending on US too much, and being stuck between Russia and Germany which would isolate it from
Europe in some ways. Obviously Poles are not uniform, views on US, Russia, Germany, Ukraine are
all over the place. I wish Poland was just European (in politics) but the US-EU connection is
still strong.
Commenting on US presidents. Presidents are puppets. All of them. Modern leaders in Western world
are unlikable. Reagan at least had some balance, had some Catholic and Paleocon involvement. It
wasnt all Neocons and Zios. Im quite sure Reagan (and his dad), people like Buchanan had connections
to groups like Knights Malta or Knights Colombus. Cant prove it though. Kennedy was KC.
Today
Neocon/Zionist influence is even stronger. Trump policies on NK and Iran are nuts. At best a war
is avoided.
On the other side you have Clintons, Obamas. They would destroy the US, and have similar policies
because again they are puppets. Clinton would likely be involved in Syria, just like Obama was.
While Polands stance on immigration, and trying to hold on to old values is good, problem
is depending on US too much
Yes, that's a problem, and I think Polish national conservatives are somewhat in denial about
what the modern US stands for the "values" pushed by the US establishment today are incompatible
with the Polish right's vision for Poland (e.g. conservative values in sexual morality – no homo-lobbyism
and transgender nonsense -, strong public role of Catholicism, restrictive and selective immigration
policies that keep out Muslims).
I can understand to some degree why the Polish right is so pro-US, given history and apprehensions
about Germany and Russia, but they should at least be aware that alliance with the US could have
a rather pernicious influence on Poland itself.
"... Bardella said Bannon had helped villainise McConnell, making him a toxic symbol of the Republican establishment and an albatross around the necks of vulnerable Republicans such as Jeff Flake of Arizona and Dean Heller of Nevada. A seat in Tennessee following Senator Bob Corker's announcement that he would not seek re-election in 2018 could also be a target. ..."
"... Among the "establishment" donors likely to oppose Bannon in a series of running battles are the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch. Bannon himself has admitted there is not "a deep bench" of viable candidates to represent his agenda. ..."
"... "The floodgates are open. You'll see a lot of this, one after another, and Steve Bannon's going to be at the centre of it. He's one for one. It'll be a civil war; it has been for quite some time." ..."
"... Andrew Surabian, a political strategist who worked under Bannon at the White House, told USA Today: "Bannon is plotting a strategy to launch an all-out assault on the Republican establishment. I think it's fair to say that if you're tied to Mitch McConnell, any of his henchmen in the consulting class, or were a Never-Trumper during the campaign, you're not safe from a primary challenge." ..."
"... Additional reporting by Lauren Gambino and Ben Jacobs ..."
Already Bannon is touring the country and meeting with candidates who will carry forward such
an agenda. He told the Bloomberg agency: "The populist-nationalist movement proved in Alabama that
a candidate with the right ideas and a grassroots organization can win big. Now, our focus is on
recruiting candidates to take over the Republican party."
The election eve rally in Alabama was a reunion of sorts of those in Bannon's political orbit.
Two potential candidates, Chris McDaniel of Mississippi and Mark Green of Tennessee, attended along
with Paul Nehlen, a primary challenger last year to the House speaker, Paul Ryan, whose campaign
was heavily promoted by Breitbart.
McDaniel described Moore's win as "incredibly inspiring" for his own challenge to Senator Roger
Wicker in 2018. "We know Mitch McConnell was rejected tonight and Roger Wicker is just another part
of Mitch McConnell's leadership apparatus," McDaniel told the Associated Press.
"We supported Donald
Trump because he was an agent of change, and he's still an agent of change. In this instance,
he must have been given bad advice to retain this particular swamp creature."
On Thursday, Bannon
spent two hours with Tom Tancredo, who worked on Nehlan's behalf and is considering a run for
Colorado governor next year. Tancredo, a former congressman, told the Guardian: "He was encouraged
by what happened in Alabama and was certainly hoping he can replicate it.
"He's trying to establish an awareness of the fact the Republican party should be standing for
the values he and others have tried to articulate over the years. It's a hugely difficult undertaking
when you consider the power of the establishment and the swamp. He just kept reiterating: 'I need
to try to save the country.'"
Asked about the prospect of a Republican civil war, Tancredo replied: "A good philosophic blood
letting is not necessarily a bad thing."
... ... ...
Bardella said Bannon had helped villainise McConnell, making him a toxic symbol of the Republican
establishment and an albatross around the necks of vulnerable Republicans such as Jeff Flake of Arizona
and Dean Heller of Nevada. A seat in Tennessee following Senator Bob Corker's announcement that he
would not seek re-election in 2018 could also be a target.
"Every dollar that is spent on a candidate by Mitch McConnell and the Republican party is a dollar
spent against them," Bardella added. "And that's because it plays right into the theme that they're
bought and paid for by the establishment."
Among the "establishment" donors likely to oppose Bannon in a series of running battles are
the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch. Bannon himself has admitted there is not "a deep
bench" of viable candidates to represent his agenda.
But he can expect at least tacit backing from Trump, who was said to be furious about having backed
the wrong horse in Alabama: the president even deleted three tweets that endorsed Strange. Bannon
also has powerful benefactors in the shape of the billionaire hedge fund investor Robert Mercer and
his daughter Rebekah Mercer.
The New York Times reported that Bannon and Robert Mercer began working out a rough outline for
a "shadow party" that would advance Trump's nationalist agenda during a
five-hour meeting last month at the family's Long Island estate.
Bannon has also been consulting with Henry Kissinger and other foreign policy veterans, Bloomberg
reported, and is preparing make the threat posed by China a central cause. "If we don't get our situation
sorted with China, we'll be destroyed economically," he said.
Rick Tyler, a political analyst and former campaign spokesman for the Texas senator Ted Cruz,
said: "Roy Moore has demonstrated that the establishment and all its money can be beaten. You can
only spend so much money in Alabama before it becomes irritating: you can only stuff so much in people's
mailboxes or run so many ads on TV.
"The floodgates are open. You'll see a lot of this, one after another, and Steve Bannon's
going to be at the centre of it. He's one for one. It'll be a civil war; it has been for quite
some time."
Republican memories are still raw from 2014, when the House majority leader,
Eric Cantor, was beaten in a primary contest by Dave Brat, a little-known professor backed by
the Tea Party. But Bannon could make the establishment versus Tea Party battle look like a mere skirmish.
Andrew Surabian, a political strategist who worked under Bannon at the White House,
told USA Today: "Bannon is plotting a strategy to launch an all-out assault on the Republican
establishment. I think it's fair to say that if you're tied to Mitch McConnell, any of his henchmen
in the consulting class, or were a Never-Trumper during the campaign, you're not safe from a primary
challenge."
Additional reporting by Lauren Gambino and Ben Jacobs
"... The Tea Party recognizes that "one of the primary sort of marks of the triumph of neoliberalism in the US is a very high tolerance of illegal immigration, and that illegal immigration is the kind of one plus ultra of the labor mobility that neoliberalism requires." The rise of illegal immigration represents a new form of capitalism, as opposed to the old "meritorious" capitalism of the post-war period. When right-wing ideologues attack "communism," the argument goes, they are actually conceptualizing neoliberalism. ..."
"... Michaels concedes that the Tea Party is a disproportionately upper middle class movement, but argues that even segments of the top twenty percentile of Americans by income have been hit hard in recent decades. ..."
"... The top one percent have been the big winners of the neoliberal era, while the other 19 percent in that bracket anxiously see their position falter in comparison. ..."
"... people in the Tea Party movement have a problem that is realer than "White male status anxiety," that the economic shifts that are taking place, the more and more extreme inequality, the more and more going to the top, no doubt some people may be unhappy because of loss of status, but many millions more are going to be unhappy because of the loss of actual money. ..."
Ideas spread in all sorts of directions. I've heard Christian right "intellectuals"
haphazardly invoke Gramsci and counter-hegemony and I myself have spent more of my youth than
I'm willing to admit reading back issues of National Review . It's probably less
of a stretch that some Tea Partiers have favorably nodded toward the ideas on their movement
that our friend Walter Benn Michaels expresses in his interview in the inaugural
Jacobin .
Here's my summary of Michaels's argument on the Tea Party and immigration, which brings up
the question, a question that shouldn't really be a question at all, about the left and open
borders. (My thoughts on the over-hyped and over-exposed Tea Party can be found over at
New Politics .)
Michaels identifies the Tea Party as a reaction against neoliberalism. He doesn't view the
challenge as a serious one, but also stresses that the movement, "is not simply a reaction
against neoliberalism from the old racist right." Michaels contests the American left's desire
to summarily reduce the Tea Party to racists: "They're thrilled when some Nazis come out and
say 'Yeah, we support the Tea Party' or some member of the Tea Party says something racist,
which is frequently enough." Michaels finds the subversive content of their political program
in an opposition to illegal immigration.
The Tea Party recognizes that "one of the primary sort of marks of the triumph of
neoliberalism in the US is a very high tolerance of illegal immigration, and that illegal
immigration is the kind of one plus ultra of the labor mobility that neoliberalism requires."
The rise of illegal immigration represents a new form of capitalism, as opposed to the old
"meritorious" capitalism of the post-war period. When right-wing ideologues attack "communism,"
the argument goes, they are actually conceptualizing neoliberalism.
Michaels concedes that the Tea Party is a disproportionately upper middle class movement,
but argues that even segments of the top twenty percentile of Americans by income have been hit
hard in recent decades.
The top one percent have been the big winners of the neoliberal era,
while the other 19 percent in that bracket anxiously see their position falter in comparison.
Responding to those who place the roots of this angst in the growing diversification of the
elite, Michaels says:
. . . people in the Tea Party movement have a problem that is realer than "White male
status anxiety," that the economic shifts that are taking place, the more and more extreme
inequality, the more and more going to the top, no doubt some people may be unhappy because
of loss of status, but many millions more are going to be unhappy because of the loss of
actual money. So my point isn't really to deny the phenomenon of status anxiety, it's just to
point out the extraordinary eagerness of American liberals to identify racism as the problem,
so that anti-racism (rather than anti-capitalism) can be the solution.
Michaels's conclusion is, in sum, that students of Friedrich Hayek and exalters of Ayn Rand
are the most visible source of resistance to neoliberalism on the American scene. Such a view,
I believe, is as contradictory as it appears...
Bhaskar Sunkara is the founding editor of Jacobin .
"... If Only The God-Emperor Knew: Using Trump_vs_deep_state Against The Trump Administration" ..."
"... Republican Sen. Corker announces he won't seek re-election ..."
"... Associated Press, ..."
"... Corker's departure is widely being interpreted as a sign of the Establishment's inability to control the GOP base, as the election of President Trump, the rise of nationalism and the emergence of alternative media outlets (such as Breitbart and VDARE.com) make it harder for cuckservatives to Republican primary voters in line [ Sen. Bob Corker's retirement is notable for when it's happening ..."
"... Washington Post, ..."
"... And now, we have the ultimate proof in Alabama. Judge Roy Moore, one of the most persistent targets of the Southern Poverty Law Center, is now the Republican nominee for the Senate. And he defeated incumbent Senator Luther Strange despite Strange being endorsed by President Donald J. Trump himself. ..."
"... Of course, Strange didn't just have Trump in his corner. He also had Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell using his PAC to run negative ads against Moore, ads which conservative websites called "defamatory" and which cost many millions of dollars [ McConnell's Super PAC accused of 'defaming ' Roy Moore ..."
"... McConnell's mortal enemy might soon be in his caucus ..."
"... Alabama rally: Trump campaigns in last-ditch effort for Senate candidate Luther Strange ..."
"... President Trump admits he doesn't 'know that much' about Alabama Senate contender Roy Moore, gets his name wrong in interview ..."
"... New York Daily News, ..."
"... During a debate with Strange, Moore suggested President Trump was being "redirected" by Mitch McConnell and others who "will not support his [Trump's] agenda" [ Alabama Senate debate erupts over whether McConnell is manipulating Trump ..."
"... Brexit Hero Farage in Alabama: Judge Roy Moore 'Not Going To Be Sucked Into The Swamp' ..."
"... Sarah Palin endorses Judge Roy Moore for US Senate ..."
"... Western Journalism, ..."
"... Ben Carson Splits With Trump, Basically Endorses Roy Moore in Alabama ..."
"... Talking Points Memo, ..."
"... Gorka: Trump Was Pressured to Endorse 'Swamp Dweller' Strange ..."
"... , Fox News, ..."
"... The Breitbart Universe Unites For Roy Moore ..."
"... The Atlantic, ..."
"... Trump's advisors seem to know this. In the Fox News ..."
"... Roy Moore Wins Senate G.O.P. Runoff in Alabama ..."
"... How Alabama Senate Election Results Could Trigger Trump's Impeachment ..."
"... Trump supports Strange, but says it may be "mistake," ..."
"... Washington Post, ..."
"... Roy Moore: 'I can't wait' for Trump to 'campaign like hell' for me ..."
"... Washington Examiner, ..."
"... Chamber of Commerce: 'Shut Down' Roy Moore & 'Remind Bannon Who's In Charge' ..."
"... Trump should seize on the narrative of his supposed opponents. He is unquestionably being given objectively poor political counsel by his aides!not surprising how utterly incompetent the Republican Establishment is when it comes to political strategy. [ Steve Bannon: We Need A Review After This Alabama Race To See How Trump Came To Endorse Someone Like Luther Strange ..."
"... Trump's N.F.L. Critique a Calculated Attempt to Shore Up His Base ..."
"... New York Times, ..."
"... Today, those who defeated Trump in the Republican army are still proclaiming their loyalty to their Commander-in-Chief. But Donald Trump, memes aside, is not a sovereign or just a symbol. He is a man who created a political movement!and that movement expects results. The movement he created, and which put him in office, is desperate for him to lead on an America First agenda. ..."
"... If Trump does not give it results, the movement will eventually find a new leader. Roy Moore is almost certainly not that leader on a national scale. But in Alabama tonight, Moore proved he is stronger than the president himself. ..."
"... James Kirkpatrick [ Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc. ..."
He must have known what was coming. Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, a pillar of the cowardly
GOP Establishment , announced he would not be running for re-election on Tuesday [
Republican Sen. Corker announces he won't seek re-election, by Richard
Lardner and Erik Schelzig, Associated Press, September 26, 2017]. Corker's
departure is widely being interpreted as a sign of the Establishment's inability to control the
GOP base, as the election of President Trump, the rise of nationalism and the emergence of
alternative media outlets (such as Breitbart and VDARE.com) make it harder for cuckservatives
to Republican primary voters in line [ Sen. Bob Corker's retirement is notable for when it's happening, by
Amber Phillips, Washington Post, September 26, 2017]
And now, we have the ultimate proof in Alabama.
Judge Roy Moore, one of the most
persistent
targets of the Southern Poverty Law Center, is now the Republican nominee for the Senate.
And he defeated incumbent Senator Luther Strange despite Strange being
endorsed by President Donald J. Trump himself.
Of course, Strange didn't just have Trump in his corner. He also had Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell using his PAC to run negative ads against Moore, ads which conservative
websites called "defamatory" and which cost many millions of dollars [ McConnell's
Super PAC accused of 'defaming ' Roy Moore, by Bob Unruh, WND,
August 3, 2017] As a result, Judge Moore openly campaigned against his party's own Senate
leader during the primary, claiming a victory for him would mean the end of McConnell's hapless
leadership. [ McConnell's
mortal enemy might soon be in his caucus, by Burgess Everett and Seung Min
Kim, Politico, September 18, 2017]
And yet, revealingly, Moore and his allies framed their insurgency against Trump's wishes as
an act of loyalty.
During a debate with Strange, Moore suggested President Trump was being "redirected" by
Mitch McConnell and others who "will not support his [Trump's] agenda" [ Alabama Senate debate erupts over whether McConnell is manipulating Trump, by Alex Isenstadt and Daniel Strauss, Politico, September 21,
2017]
And most importantly, it shows how the populist and nationalist movement is larger than
Trump himself.
Trump's advisors seem to know this. In the Fox News interview referenced above,
Dr. Gorka claimed "no one voted for Trump, we voted for his agenda." And during his speech in support of Moore,
Bannon referenced Jeff Sessions, not Trump, as
the "spiritual father of the populist and nationalist movement."
But does Trump himself know this? Already, the Main Stream Media is trying to present this
as a devastating defeat for the president personally. The New York Times kvetched
about Moore's social views and sneered that his victory "demonstrated in stark terms the limits
of Mr. Trump's clout" [ Roy Moore Wins Senate G.O.P. Runoff in Alabama, by Jonathan Martin and
Alexander Burns, September 26, 2017]. Jason Le Miere at Newsweek suggested Trump had
suffered his first major political defeat at the ballot box and hinted his political weakness
could trigger his impeachment. [ How
Alabama Senate Election Results Could Trigger Trump's Impeachment, September
26, 2017]
It's hardly a devastating defeat for President Trump when his supposed enemies are
fanatically loyal to him and his "allies" can't wait to stab him in the back.
Tellingly, Trump in his messy intuitive way is already embarking on a movement to shore up
his base by taking on the pro-Black Lives Matter and anti-American antics of the National
Football League [ Trump's
N.F.L. Critique a Calculated Attempt to Shore Up His Base, by Glenn Thrush
and Maggie Haberman, New York Times, September 25, 2017]. But such symbolic fights are
meaningless unless they are coupled with real action on trade and immigration policy.
Today, those who defeated Trump in the Republican army are still proclaiming their
loyalty to their Commander-in-Chief. But Donald Trump, memes aside, is not a sovereign or just
a symbol. He is a man who created a political movement!and that movement expects results. The
movement he created, and which put him in office, is desperate for him to lead on an America
First agenda.
If Trump does not give it results, the movement will eventually find a new leader. Roy
Moore is almost certainly not that leader on a national scale. But in Alabama tonight, Moore
proved he is stronger than the president himself.
Trump has given the Establishment Republicans their chance and they have failed him. It's
time for him to return to the people who have supported him from the very beginning.
James Kirkpatrick [ Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from
Conservatism Inc.
Look people, it's time to grasp some basic politics. The heart might have said Roy Moore
but a leader can not think with his heart alone. Whatever happened in the GOP primary, Luther
Strange was going to remain in the Senate until January. There are big, important votes
coming up in Congress and Trump's margin of error in the Senate is virtually non-existent.
What sense does it make to alienate, even slight, a sitting Senator that has always voted
your way and has never trashed you in public?
It's hardly a devastating defeat for President Trump when his supposed enemies are
fanatically loyal to him and his "allies" can't wait to stab him in the back.
As a man who supposedly highly values personal loyalty, does Trump really not understand
that the men who pushed him to support Strange are also the men who will be first in line to
vote for impeachment the moment it looks as though the leftist establishment has found a
pretext that will succeed?
The movement better start paying attention to the thoughtcrime laws being passed right now
under the banner of "hatespeech". The first amendment isn't just a nice concept. People in
other countries are jailed for speaking their mind in the way Americans take for granted.
"... We should not be entangled in foreign wars merely at the whim and caprice of a President, Moore writes on his site. We must treat sovereign nations as we would want to be treated. ..."
"... It's too early to tell whether the nationalist hawks will be more or less interventionist overall than the internationalist, neocon hawks were, Daniel McCarthy, editor-at-large at the American Conservative ..."
...Steve Bannon told me Wednesday afternoon that he and Moore, who defeated Sen. Luther
Strange (whom President Trump had backed) for the Republican primary nomination in Alabama on
Tuesday, see eye to eye on global affairs, as well, and that, yes, he is every bit the
Bannonite on foreign policy.
Moore, the twice-ousted Alabama Chief Justice, is likely headed to the United States Senate.
Bannon and the Trump movement have often been depicted as essentially non-interventionist. My
recent
reportingindicates
a
caveat to that, however. While Bannon and his cohort might differ with the
blob on confronting Kim Jong Un in North Korea or Bashar al-Assad in Syria or Vladimir
Putin in Russia, they are much more suspicious of the government of Iran. ...
... ... ...
The judges website, Roymoore.org, features such language. We should not be entangled in
foreign wars merely at the whim and caprice of a President, Moore writes on his site. We must
treat sovereign nations as we would want to be treated.
But there are notable divergences from the paleocons. Like Bannon, Moore is a hawk for
Israel. We should pass the
Taylor Force Act and move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. His writing that the U.S. should
not rely on nuclear reduction treaties which leave us vulnerable to foreign powers and that it
should reject agreements or policies that undermine Israel's security clearly alludes to the
Iran deal. The pair would part company with Buchanan on that.
And like President Trump, Moore, a graduate of West Point, wants a bigger military. More
funding should be available to develop a missile defense system and to provide our Navy, Air
Force, Army, Marines, and Coast Guard with the most modern technology including weapon systems.
Respect for our strength is the best defense. Walk softly and carry a big stick is and should
be our guide.
... ... ...
It's too early to tell whether the nationalist hawks will be more or less
interventionist overall than the internationalist, neocon hawks were, Daniel McCarthy,
editor-at-large at the American Conservative , tells me. My guess is that while the
nationalists will speak more provocatively, abort diplomatic agreements, and ramp up `political
warfare, they'll engage in fewer large-scale, nation-building interventions. McCarthy adds
that religion is important here, as well. Moore and Bannon are both on record as deeply
religious. Neoconservative foreign policy is sold as a scheme for secular salvation, bringing
the blessings of liberalism and democracy and human rights to a world that eagerly awaits them,
says McCarthy. Moore's religious convictions might help to immunize him against a belief in
worldly salvation through American arms and advisers...
Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest. Follow him on
Twitter: @CurtMills.
"... Jeb's 2016 departure draws out Mike Murphy critics , ..."
"... Devil's Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency ..."
"... Political Divisions in 2016 and Beyon ..."
"... Tensions Between and Within the Two Parties, ..."
"... When Donald Trump burst onto the scene, Bannon had found what he is quoted describing as a "blunt instrument for us," a man who had "taken this nationalist movement and moved it up twenty years." ..."
"... Devil's Bargain ..."
"... the rise of Bannon and Trump holds lessons for the Dissident Right. One of them: despite how powerful the Establishment may appear, there are fatal disconnects between it and the people it rules!for example, on social and identity issues. Thus, many members of this Ruling Class, such as the Republican strategists who predicted a Jeb or Rubio victory, have been more successful in deluding themselves than they have been in building any kind of effective base. Similarly, Clinton campaign operatives believed, without much evidence, that undecided voters would eventually break in their favor. Because the thought of a Trump presidency was too horrifying for them to contemplate, they refused to recognize polls showing a close race, ignored the Midwest and sauntered their candidate off to Arizona in the final days. ..."
"... Of course, currently the ideas that Bannon fought for appear to be on the wane, leading him to declare upon leaving the White House that the "Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over." [ Weekly Standard, August 18, 2017] ..."
"... But this is probably somewhat of an exaggeration. I doubt that Bannon laments the fact that the current president is Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio. But it has proved much more difficult to change government policy than to win an election. Unlike GOP strategists, the Deep State appears to know what it is doing. ..."
Throughout 2016, I would occasionally turn on the television to see how the punditocracy was responding to the mounting
Trump tsunami . If you get most of your news online, watching cable news is frustrating. The commentary is so
dumbed down and painfully
reflective of speaker's biases, you can always basically guess what's coming next. With a few exceptions!above all
Ann Coulter 's famous
June 19, 2015 prediction
of a Trump victory on
Bill Maher !these pundits again and again told us that Trump would eventually go away, first after he made this or that gaffe,
then after he "failed" in a debate, then after people actually started voting in the primaries.
The most interesting cases to me: the "
Republican
strategists ," brought on to CNN and MSNBC to give the audience the illusion that they were hearing both sides: Nicole Wallace,
Steve Schmidt, Ana Navarro, Rick Wilson, Margaret Hoover, Todd Harris.
Mike Murphy even convinced donors to hand him over $100 million to make Jeb Bush the next president! [ Jeb's 2016
departure draws out Mike Murphy critics , By Maeve Reston, February 22, 2016]
With campaigns and donors throwing money at these people, and the Main Stream Media touting them, it was easy to assume they must
know what they were talking about. Significantly, each of these pundits was a national security hawk, center-right on economic issues,
and just as horrified by "
racism " and "
sexism
" as their
Leftist counterparts . By a remarkable coincidence, the "
strategic
" advice that they gave to Republican candidates lined up perfectly with these positions. Their prominence was a mirage created
by the fact that the
MSM handed this
token opposition the
Megaphone
because they did not challenge the core prejudices of the
bipartisan Ruling Class.
And of course they were all humiliated in a spectacular fashion, November 8 being only the climax.
Joshua Green begins his book Devil's Bargain: Steve Bannon,
Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency by giving us a view inside the Trump campaign on election night, before
tracing Steve Bannon's path up to that point. Reliving the journey is one of the joys of Green's work, which is mostly an intellectual
biography of Steve Bannon,
with a special focus on his relationship with Trump and the election.
Bannon
joined the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016 without any previous experience in electoral politics. But like the candidate
himself, the Breitbart editor showed that he understood the nature of American politics and the GOP base
better than Establishment Republicans. The "strategists'" supposed "expertise," "strategic advice," and "analysis" was in reality
built on a house of cards. (In fact, the
Bannon-Trump
view of the electorate is closer to the
consensus among
political scientists that, unlike more nationalist and populist policies,
Republican Establishment positions have relatively little popular support. [
Political
Divisions in 2016 and Beyon d | Tensions Between and Within the Two Parties, Voter Study Group, June 2017]).
Bannon at Breitbart.com gave the Republican base what it wanted. Moral: in a democracy, you always have a chance at winning when
public opinion (or at least intraparty opinion) is on your side.
Green traces Bannon's journey from his
Irish-Catholic working-class
roots and traditionalist upbringing, to his time in the Navy, at Harvard Business School and Goldman Sachs, and finally Breitbart.com
and the pinnacle of American politics. The picture that
emerges is of a man with principles and vigor, refusing to submit to the inertia that is part of the human condition, with enough
confidence to realize that life is too short to not make major changes when staying on the current path is not going to allow him
to accomplish his goals.
For example, Bannon originally wanted a career in defense policy, and took a job in the Pentagon during the Reagan administration.
Yet he was off to Harvard Business School when he realized that the rigid
bureaucracy that he was a part of would not let him move up to a high-level position until he was middle-aged. Decades later,
after taking over his website upon the unexpected death
of Andrew Breitbart in 2012, it would have been easy to go low-risk!sticking to Establishment scripts, making life comfortable
for Republican elites, implicitly submitting to the taboos of the Left.
Instead , he helped turn Breitbart News into a major voice of the populist tide that has been remaking center-right politics
across the globe.
When Donald Trump burst onto the scene, Bannon had found what he is quoted describing as a "blunt instrument for us," a man
who had "taken this nationalist movement and moved it up twenty years."
From Green, we learn much about Bannon's intellectual influences. Surprisingly, although he was raised as a Roman Catholic and
maintains that faith today, we find out that Bannon briefly practiced Zen Buddhism while in the Navy. There are other unusual influences
that make appearances in the book, including Rightist philosopher
Julius Evola and
René Guénon,
a French occultist who eventually became a Sufi Muslim. Although not exactly my cup of tea, such eccentric intellectual interests
reflect a curious mind that refuses to restrict itself to fashionable influences.
It's incorrect to call Devil's Bargain a biography. There is practically no mention of Bannon's personal life!wives,
children. I had to Google to find out that he has three daughters. His childhood is only discussed in the context of how it may have
influenced his beliefs and political development.
Rather, we get information on Bannon's intellectual and career pursuits and his relationships with consequential figures such
as mega-donor Robert Mercer, Andrew Breitbart and Donald Trump.
As Bannon exits the White House and returns to Breitbart, we must hope that Bannon and the movement he's helped to create accomplish
enough in the future to inspire more complete biographies.
But the rise of Bannon and Trump holds lessons for the Dissident Right. One of them: despite how powerful the Establishment
may appear, there are fatal disconnects between it and the people it rules!for example, on social and identity issues. Thus, many
members of this Ruling Class, such as the Republican strategists who predicted a Jeb or Rubio victory, have been more successful
in deluding themselves than they have been in building any kind of effective base. Similarly, Clinton campaign operatives believed,
without much evidence, that undecided voters would eventually break in their favor. Because the thought of a Trump presidency was
too horrifying for them to contemplate, they refused to recognize polls showing a close race, ignored the Midwest and sauntered their
candidate off to Arizona in the final days.
Of course, currently the ideas that Bannon fought for appear to be on the wane, leading him to declare upon leaving the White
House that the "Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over." [
Weekly Standard, August 18, 2017]
But this is probably somewhat of an exaggeration. I doubt that Bannon laments the fact that the current president is Donald
Trump rather than Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio. But it has proved much more difficult to change government policy than to win an
election. Unlike GOP strategists, the Deep State appears to know what it is doing.
In his memoir Nixon's White House Wars , Pat
Buchanan writes about how, despite playing a pivotal role in the election of 1968, the conservative movement was
mostly shut out
of high-level jobs:
Then there was the painful reality with which the right had to come to terms. Though our movement had exhibited real power
in capturing the nomination for Barry Goldwater and helping Nixon crush the Rockefeller-Romney wing of the Republican Party, and
though we were
playing a pivotal role in the election of 1968, the conservative movement was
mostly shut out
of high-level jobs:
Then there was the painful reality with which the right had to come to terms. Though our movement had exhibited real power
in capturing the nomination for Barry Goldwater and helping Nixon crush the Rockefeller-Romney wing of the Republican Party, and
though we were veterans of a victorious presidential campaign, few of us had served in the executive branch. We lacked titles,
resumes, credentials Our pool of experienced public servants who could seamlessly move into top positions was miniscule compared
to that of the liberal Democrats who had dominated the capital's politics since FDR arrived in 1933.
History repeated itself in 2016, when Donald Trump would win the presidency on a nationalist platform but find few qualified individuals
who could reliably implement his agenda.
If nationalists want to ensure that their next generation of leaders is able to effectively implement the policies they run on,
they are going to have to engage in the slow and tedious project of working their way up through powerful institutions.
Bannon may have been and remains an "outsider" to the political Establishment. But nonetheless, throughout his life he has leveraged
elite institutions such as Harvard, Goldman Sachs, the Republican Party, and even Hollywood in order to become financially independent
and free to pursue his political goals.
If enough of those on the Dissident Right forge a similar path, we can be sure that future nationalist political victories will
be less hollow. Jeremy Cooper is a specialist in international politics and an observer of global trends. Follow him at
@NeoNeoLiberal .
@Clyde Wilson
Is there any evidence that Trump even tried to find the right people to fill the offices? Having dabbled ever so slightly
in this process in the spring, my impression is that there is a mechanism run largely by lawyers from the big DC law firms (presumably
one for each party) who are the gatekeepers for applicants. The result of this system, which I have little doubt that the "Trump
Team" did not try to take on (after all, they had only a couple of months to put together the beginnings of a team, and that left
little or no time replacing The Swamp Machine ) is that the key positions throughout the administration are largely filled with
lawyers from connected law firms. After all, who better to administer the government than lawyers!?!?
At any rate, my experience with the process was: on your marks, get set, nothing. 30 years experience in and around federal
government, but not a lawyer. Don't call us, we don't want to talk to you. (I also made clear in my cover letter that the key
motivator for my application -- and first ever political contributions -- was Trump and his agenda. In retrospect, this "admission"
was probably a kiss of death. I was a Trumpite. Eeeewww!!! (I may well not have been qualified for anything, but I'm SURE I was
disqualified by my support for Trump )
In its aftermath, commentators warned of a resurgence of economic nationalism, that is,
protectionism. Some states did increase tariff levels but this has not led to a generalised
increase in barriers to trade in the pursuit of national economies for interrelated reasons:
(1) the integration and therefore interdependency of economies; (2) the complexity of the
global economy, making it all but impossible to separate by nationality; (3) the greater
extensity of world markets compared to the mid-20th century; (4) the redundancy of the various
models of economic nationalism.
Policy Implications
Economic nationalism should be understood as a set of practices to create, bolster and
protect national economies in the context of world markets. The rise and institutionalisation
of economic nationalism in the 20th century was a product of economic crisis, nationalist
movements and enlarged states.
There has been no 'return of economic nationalism' as in a generalised rise in protective
barriers to trade since the financial crash of 2011. Unlike the 1930s, sovereign debt has not
motivated states to withdraw from global markets.
The integration, complexity and extensity of the world's economy mean that a reversal of
trade as great as during the interwar period would entail an economic Armageddon. Whatever
future ructions the world's economy experiences due, above all, to chronic levels of
sovereign debt, policy makers should be mindful of this reality.
Simultaneously, they should be aware that ongoing instability may entail greater economic
nationalism. The key lesson from the period after the Second World War is relevant now at a
more overtly global level: the importance of planning, regulation and respect for models of
economic diversity to further global trade.
"... neocons are not Alt Right. National Socialists are not Alt Right. ..."
"... The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives. ..."
"... The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means. ..."
"... The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers. ..."
"... The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another ..."
The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of
the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt
Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and
neocons are not Alt Right.
National Socialists are not Alt Right.
The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that
is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk's
10 Conservative
Principles
, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative
to libertarianism.
The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled
defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt
Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality,
cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.
The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and
supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the
Graeco-Roman legacy.
The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the
right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and
immigration.
The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals
or globalist objectives.
The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason
it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist
in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.
The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the
scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future
revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called
scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically
unscientific.
The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.
The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by
another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is
opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through
nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.
The Alt Right doesn't care what you think of it.
The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free
trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of
international free trade.
The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for
white children.
The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people,
or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique
strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native
culture it prefers.
The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the
world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another
as well as
efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic
assimilation.
TL;DR: The Alt Right is a Western ideology that believes in science, history, reality, and
the right of a genetic nation to exist and govern itself in its own interests.
The patron saint of conservatives, Russell Kirk, wrote:
"The great line of demarcation in
modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one
side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women
who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only
needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that
line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant
human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal."
This is no longer true, assuming it ever was. The great line of demarcation in modern
politics is now a division between men and women who believe that they are ultimately defined
by their momentary opinions and those who believe they are ultimately defined by their genetic
heritage. The Alt Right understands that the former will always lose to the latter in the end,
because the former is subject to change.
Rejection of globalization by alt-right is very important. that's why make them economic nationalists.
And that's why they are hated neocon and those forces of neoliberalism which are behind Neocon/Neolib
Cultural Revolution -- promotion of LGBT, uni-gender bathrooms, transsexuals, etc, identity wedge in
politics demonstrated by Hillary, etc. (modeled on Mao's cultural revolution, which also what launched
when Mao started to lose his grip on political power).
In my experience with the alt-right, I encountered a surprisingly common narrative: Alt-right supporters
did not, for the most part, come from overtly racist families. Alt-right media platforms have actually
been pushing this meme aggressively in recent months. Far from defending the ideas and institutions
they inherited, the alt-right!which is overwhelmingly a movement of white millennials!forcefully
condemns their parents' generation. They do so because they do not believe their parents are racist
enough
In an inverse of the left-wing protest movements of the 1960s, the youthful alt-right bitterly
lambast the "boomers" for their lack of explicit ethnocentrism, their rejection of patriarchy, and
their failure to maintain America's old demographic characteristics and racial hierarchy. In the
alt-right's vision, even older conservatives are useless "cucks" who focus on tax policies and forcefully
deny that they are driven by racial animus.
... ... ...
To complicate matters further, many people in the alt-right were radicalized while in college. Not
only that, but the efforts to inoculate the next generation of America's social and economic leaders
against racism were, in some cases, a catalyst for racist radicalization. Although academic seminars
that explain the reality of white privilege may reduce feelings of prejudice among most young whites
exposed to them, they have the opposite effect on other young whites. At this point we do not know
what percentage of white college students react in such a way, but the number is high enough to warrant
additional study.
A final problem with contemporary discussions about racism is that they often remain rooted in
outdated stereotypes. Our popular culture tends to define the racist as a toothless illiterate Klansman
in rural Appalachia, or a bitter, angry urban skinhead reacting to limited social prospects. Thus,
when a white nationalist movement arises that exhibits neither of these characteristics, people are
taken by surprise.
It boggles my mind that the left, who were so effective at dominating the culture wars basically
from the late 60s, cannot see the type of counter-culture they are creating. Your point about
alt-righters opposing their parents drives this home.
People have been left to drift in a sea of postmodernism without an anchor for far too long
now, and they are grasping onto whatever seems sturdy. The alt-right, for its many faults, provides
something compelling and firm to grab.
The left's big failure when all the dust settles will be seen as its inability to provide a
coherent view of human nature and a positive, constructive, unifying message. They are now the
side against everything – against reason, against tradition, against truth, against shared institutions
and heritage and nationalism It's no wonder people are looking to be for something these days.
People are sick of being atomized into smaller and smaller units, fostered by the left's new and
now permanent quest to find new victim groups.
I'm disappointed to read an article at The American Conservative that fails to address the reality
behind these numbers. Liberal identity politics creates an inherently adversarial arena, wherein
white people are depicted as the enemy. That young whites should respond by gravitating toward
identity politics themselves in not surprising, and it's a bit offensive to attribute this trend
to the eternal mysteries of inexplicable "racist" hate.
The young can see through the fake dynamic being depicted in the mainstream media, and unless
The American Conservative wants to completely lose relevance, a light should be shone on the elephant
in the room. For young white kids, The Culture Wars often present an existential threat, as Colin
Flaherty shows in Don't Make the Black Kids Angry–endorsed and heralded as a troubling and important
work by Thomas Sowell.
From the 16 Points of the Alt-Right:
5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right
of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist
objectives.
It is important to remember that nations are people, not geography. The current American Union,
enforced by imperial conquest, is a Multi-National empire. It has been held together by force
and more recently by common, though not equal, material prosperity.
With the imposition of Globalism's exotic perversions and eroding economic prospects the American
Union is heading for the same fate as all Multi-National empires before it.
Mysteriously absent from the scholarly discussion seems to be the pioneer of sociology, Ludwig
Gumplowicz. Incredibly so, as the same factors that led to the destruction of the Austro-Hungarian
Empire abound in contemporary America.
I have two teenage sons – we live in Canada – and they tell that, no matter what they say, who
they hang out with, what music they listen to, no matter how many times they demonstrate they
are not racist, they are repeatedly called racist. They are automatically guilty because they
are white. They are beaten over the head with this message in school and in the press and are
sick and t
'Wasting taxpayers'
money': Lawyer Veselnitskaya talks Trump's dossier & Fusion GPS
'Weapon of mass
suppression': Russiagate now used to target any dissent in US – Max Blumenthal
