10

Farce

So Donald Trump Jr. was conned during the campaign into meeting with a female Russian attorney who allegedly had dirt from the Russian government on Hillary Clinton.  The meeting was held, the Russian attorney, Natalia Veselnitskaya, had no information on Clinton and wanted to talk about her pet cause, Americans adopting Russian kids.  The biggest foe of the Trump administration is the clownish manner in which they often conduct themselves.  As for going to a foreign government to get dirt on a political adversary:  bad, very bad, and very common, as the Clinton campaign demonstrated by working with the Ukrainian embassy in regard to producing dirt against Trump.  Go here to read all about it.

Share With Friends
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Donald R. McClarey

Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three and happily married for 35 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.

10 Comments

  1. Hah ha. People said they wanted someone other than an experienced politician.
    The public got what they wanted, good and hard. H.L. Mencken called that “democracy”.

  2. Considering that the other choice in the general election was experienced politician Hillary Clinton, I’d say that the people were right. (Initially I was not going to support Trump, but Hillary convinced me ultimately of the folly of that course.) As for Mencken, his main political impulse was sheer contempt for anyone unfortunate enough not to be Mencken.

  3. What’s troublesome about this is that Jr. didn’t bat an eye when this Goldstone character said ‘It’s part of … support for…”. The optics are terrible, though the meeting itself was unremarkable.

    The ‘collusion with Russia’ meme appears to be a DNC-CNN-WaPoo-NYT circle jerk and partisan Democrats in fora like this cannot seem to specify just what form the ‘collusion’ took and what were its effects. It’s a reasonable wager that the Washington insider nexus operating through Mueller and his crew of Democratic party donors will gin up some indictment derived from an obscure provision of the U.S. Code that’s seldom if ever enforced (see Dinesh D’Souza). Our elites are unworthy people, in large measure one suspects because our professional-managerial class is liberally salted with people who would have been shunned as sleazeballs or dismissed as terminally vapid in 1960. Remember Peter Orszag, BO’s budget director. At one time knocking-up your girlfriend and leaving her in the lurch (at age 40!) would have been a career ender. It was noted without comment in the media. You cannot blackmail people anymore because they have no shame.

  4. How is it that going to LISTEN to someone who says “I have evidence of criminal activity that, if true, you really need to know as a basic civic duty, but it’s also useful for you” has turned into “information that would hurt Clinton”?

    Source: “I have evidence that person is doing (crime)!”
    News: “Person who talked to (source) about negative information is guilty of (crime)!”

  5. When I saw Shea getting kind of giddy over this I wondered what the other shoe was about. I haven’t been so confused about what is supposed to be a crime since the Scooter Libby debacle. I did laugh at Glen Reynold’s point: From “hacking” to “collusion” to “willingness to collude.”

    If Dems keep up with this insanity, they may have to invent new words for what will be done to them in 2018.

    @FoxFier – Andrew Klavan has a running saying about that. IIRC it’s something like, “If the leak hurts a conservative it is the story, if the leak hurts a liberal, the story is how did you get the information.”

  6. The liberals hate Russia today because she has rejected communism and is returning to her Christian Orthodox roots. It’s really that simple. Indeed, when she was communist, Bernie Sanders vacationed in Russia and tried to turn Burlington, VT into a little Moscow. And later on Hillary sold Russia 20% of our uranium. And Obama told the Russian President to tell Putin that after he was re-elected, he would have more maneuvering room.

    If the Russians did everything being attributed to them, then our alphabet would be Cyrillic and our language a Slavic derivative.

  7. LQC, now that you mention it. I’ve often tried to explain to my boys what it was like growing up in the Cold War (real old timers tales). I also try to explain how, as the 80s unfolded and I moved from middle school through college, it was easy to see that many on the left, especially among the younger gang, seemed to prefer the USSR to the US. There was certainly no holding back when they welcomed Gorbachev and his wife. It was like the Beatles coming to America. And I can remember how they lifted up Gorbachev over and against the always inferior dolt Reagan. I guess that’s why, despite the fact that Trump did do and say things I found objectionable, his praising of Putin over and against Obama never phased me. But I’ve wondered why, apart from pure political expediency, the the Left seems to have hated Russia again, especially since we were told in 2008 that Russia was no big deal. That might not be altogether wrong.

  8. “But I’ve wondered why, apart from pure political expediency, the the Left seems to have hated Russia again”
    Russia is definitely moving in the direction of banning abortion, due to pressure from both the Russian Orthodox Church and demographic studies. Of course the Left would hate Russia for that. It’s just too bad that the Putin version of fascism gives them some small credence. A truly democratic Russia would be a much better witness for life.

  9. It’s just too bad that the Putin version of fascism gives them some small credence. A truly democratic Russia would be a much better witness for life.

    Russian revanchism is contextually mild and Russia currently expends just 4% of its domestic product on the military. For all that the regime is abusive, there’s more political pluralism than there has been at any time in the modern era bar the period running from 1905-18 and 1988-2004. There’s a considerable inventory of state-owned industry, but I don’t think formal cartels encompass much of the economy; there is at least notional antitrust legislation. Union penetration is about 50% of the workforce. I think you do have tripartite boards of a sort you had in Spain.

    It’s an abrasive and officious authoritarian state, not a fascist mobilization state.

  10. “It’s an abrasive and officious authoritarian state, not a fascist mobilization state.”
    I think that’s about right, it’s more like Franco’s Spain than Mussolini’s Italy. I think we can use the word ‘fascism’ with the understanding it casts a wide net.

Comments are closed.