[Frontpage] Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.
"It’s a bellwether for what the Democratic Party is going to be about," Democratic National Committee boss Tom Perez boasted.
That was back in March and the Dems had just begun their frantic spending spree in Georgia’s Sixth. By the time it was over, Jon Ossoff, an awkward immature hipster who didn’t even live in the district, had raised $23.6 million and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had burned through another $5 million. Other groups threw in around $2.6 million to achieve absolutely nothing.
$31 million had been spent and wasted on history’s most expensive congressional election. And the Dem experts congratulated themselves that they had lost by a smaller margin than in the past.
They had spent $30 million more than in their first special election in Kansas to gain a whole 1%.
Just as after their previous special election defeats, the charts and graphs came out comparing their performance to those of previous elections. Never mind that turnout differs dramatically during presidential and special elections. Or that spending $31 million to lose by 6 percent is a disaster.
What the Democrat Party really was going to be about was setting piles of money on fire.
In Montana, a quixotic bid by Rob Quist had garnered $5 million in donations and another $1 million in outside spending. Even after a stunt by a Guardian reporter caused the Republican candidate to lose many of his newspaper endorsements, Quist barely ended up with 44 percent.
The special election frenzy began in Kansas when the left decided that Rep. Mike Pompeo’s open seat might be winnable. After Trump’s victory, angry Dems decided to pour money into the campaign. Democrat James Thompson raised around $832,000, but Republican Ron Estes won by 7 percent.
#1
In the Georgia House race the Dems spent all that money and didn't gain a vote over the Dem vote in the previous election. At first people (Repubs) might have just stayed home in disgust at the whole thing, but at some point they got irritated enough to come out and vote against Mr. Moneybags.
[The Hill] Now that President Trump has tweeted that he didn’t tape James Comey, the anti-Trump zealots are accusing him of witness intimidation.
This is most the absurd of the many absurd charges leveled against Trump by those out to get him without regard to the law.
Trump’s bluff was calculated to get Comey to tell the truth. How can that be witness intimidation? If it were, Abraham Lincoln would have gone to prison rather than the White House. As a young lawyer, he, too, bluffed a witness into telling the truth. In one of his most famous murder cases, a witness testified that he saw Lincoln’s client kill the victim. The time it occurred was at night, so the witness testified that he was able to see the crime because there was a full moon. Lincoln then handed the witness an almanac and asked him to turn to the date in question. The almanac showed that there was no moon on that night, and the witness broke down and admitted that he had not seen the crime. The defendant was acquitted. Lincoln later acknowledged that he had deliberately fooled the witness into telling the truth by handing him an almanac for the wrong year. The correct year’s almanac indeed showed a full moon.
I don’t want to compare myself to Lincoln, but I, too, used a similar bluff involving tapes when I was a young lawyer back in the 1970s. I was cross-examining a police officer who was lying through his teeth about what he had said to my client. Pretending that my client had recorded the crucial conversation, I read him what appeared to him to be a transcript of the tape. In fact it was only a transcript of my client’s best recollection about what he had been told. Believing there was a tape the witness changed his testimony and admitted making the crucial statement to my client. As a result we won the case.
Prosecutors frequently bluff about the quality and quantity of the evidence they have against a defendant in order to get him to plead guilty or to become a cooperating witness.
#3
Doesn't matter - it gets the rubes rialed up and violent which is what matters. Their goal is to de-legitimize the president and, if they are lucky (in their eyes), get someone to take a shot at him or his family
#7
It's suddenly dawned on me that the entire frantic effort to find some reason to find some shred of legitimacy of dubious/criminal conduct by the President, and to gain control of the Congress is to impeach Trump and the motive behind impeaching Trump is simple. The Supreme Court , they are terrified of the changes the court will see after four or eight years of a Trump presidency. It would be more transformative than any other executive/legislative act, since the right, not the left, could use lawfare across the land to stop the march to socialism and cultural suicide.
#10
What #7) NoMoreBS said.
Any believer in Civil Liberty should be suspicious of power concentrated in any form of government. The Left is looking at a Frankenstein that they have spent decades constructing and are terrified that it can be turned against them...
#11
Trump's tweets denying the tapes were interestingly worded. There's room there for the tapes to exist, he merely said he did not make them and that he does not have them.
I believe he also used the word "tapes" exclusively which does not necessarily preclude the existence of other types of recordings.
Keep in mind that whatever immunity deal Mueller gave his buddy Comey almost certainly requires Comey to testify truthfully. Trump may still be baiting the pair of them.
Posted by: Throluth Lover of the Sith4976 ||
06/23/2017 13:48 Comments ||
Top||
#12
almost certainly requires Comey to testify truthfully
That would be logical.
However, I'm remembering how Comey didn't require testimony, records, or deals when it came to protecting Dem operatives over the course of his tenure . . . .
#14
The Supreme Court, yes -- many of the judges have gotten a bit long in the tooth. But there are an awful lot of empty federal judgeships and appellate court appointments needed as well -- that effort has lagged for years. And if the 9th circuit is split, as it apparently needs to be, the entire national character of the judiciary could change, leaving no haven where liberal cases could get their start toward setting precedents.
As for poor Mr. Comey, his actions during the past eight years were notable for being taken under a progressive Democratic president. Mr. Mueller is answerable to President Trump, who expects proper behaviour and knows what he did and did not do. Then there is the fact that the Democrats have not improved their position in the House, despite all the posturing and the river of money, so he cannot hope for succor there.
#15
Won't be many judgeships confirmed in the next 18 months, as the Dems stall and block hoping for a change in Senate control, which is not unlikely.
[Anti-idiotarianRottweiler] While noting in passing that the whole Narrative regarding the “Finsbury Mosque Attack” is beginning to look a bit fishy according to some and while trying to avoid jumping to conclusions (unlike the MFM), it’s hard for us to even pretend that we didn’t expect something like this to happen if, indeed, it is what the MFM is furiously trying to peddle.
After wave after wave of pisslamic “lone wolves” murdering innocents all over the planet, you’d have to be a particularly dense kind of knob to think that nothing would ever happen in response.
#2
Deport them first and all of that can be avoided.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
06/23/2017 9:41 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Is it really all that difficult to learn the lessons of history?
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
06/23/2017 9:41 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Is it really all that difficult to learn the lessons of history?
It is if you don't teach it. It is if you only teach a white-washed version because the darker parts are 'icky' or unflattering. It is if you make shit up in order to make certain groups appear more enlightened.
However, aren't the schools and Universities teaching how horrible whitey is? If the students believed what they were being taught they'd be terrified to pull off the nonsense we see on a daily basis. Just as if they really thought Trump was a fascist they wouldn't risk publicly announcing their resistance.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.