The only thing I take seriously is my Freedom. And Bacon.

Tuesday, February 6, 2018

Michael S Schmidt Pawn or Player For Democrat Russia Distraction

March 2015 -

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest recently shot down a New York Post report claiming that senior Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett orchestrated a leak to reveal that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had used a private email address for government business.
“Utter baloney,” Earnest said.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks, had already said shortly after The New York Times broke the story about Clinton’s emails that his committee wasn’t the source.

February, 2015: In mid-February, Micheal S Schmidt of the New York Times,  got a tip that the State Department had turned over Benghazi-related emails, sent from Clinton’s personal account, to the committee.
This cache, it would later be revealed, included 300 emails totaling around 900 pages. But it still wasn’t clear to Schmidt that Clinton had never had a State Department email and had conducted government business exclusively on the private account during her four-year tenure — a practice that could impede records requests from congressional committees and journalists.
The next day, Schmidt headed off to Florida on vacation for five days, and, upon his return, was assigned to follow Defense Secretary Ash Carter to Afghanistan and Kuwait. When he returned to Washington, by his account, he slept for a full day before finally getting to dig into the Clinton email story on Friday, Feb. 27.

That morning, he quickly learned from sources that Clinton had handed over 50,000 pages of emails -– around 30,000 emails in total — to the State Department. 

Schmidt said that through the weekend, Times Washington Bureau Chief Carolyn Ryan kept pushing him to get more details, which he did. However, Schmidt did leave his apartment for a few hours Saturday evening, donning a tuxedo to cover a wedding for the Times, an assignment that predated the Clinton email story.
After a few more days of reporting, Schmidt determined that Clinton had not, in fact, ever used a State Department email address. The Times published his story on the night of Monday, March 2, with the piece landing at the top of the next morning’s front page.

The following Sunday, on “Meet the Press,” Gowdy credited the Times with uncovering information that his committee hadn’t. Jamal Ware, a spokesman for the Benghazi committee, clarified in a later email to HuffPost that Gowdy’s comments referred to how Clinton had “retained control of the emails and State had to be asked for them back,” adding that “State did not inform the committee of that before the NYT report.”

Hillary Clinton Watching Harvey Weinstein Movie While Benghazi Burned

On May 25, 2015 - Chuck Ross exposed 13 of the worst of Hillary Clinton's emails that were "dumped" online on Memorial Day 2015 (a "Friday" dump usually signals the hope that people will be too busy with the weekend to pay attention).

One very disturbing detail is that Hillary was that Hillary was totally incompetent and the Obama administration either had no idea or did know, and was hoping to use her mistakes against her at a later date.

The 13 tops emails show her lack of awareness. And also show she was more interested in a movie bought by sexual predator Harvey Weinstein (to promote Obama's re-eclection) than she was about the unrest and terror in Benghazi.

The article written by Chuck Ross:

Harvey Weinstein on the movie Hillary was watching (The Oath of Tobruk) “This wonderful movie shows BHL’s incredible courage and the strength of former French president Nicolas Sarkozy, and also highlights the invaluable leadership from President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,” said Weinstein. “American audiences will get a behind-the-scenes glimpse of how our government and the French government worked together to stop the slaughter of innocent civilians and brilliantly handled the overthrow of a government.”

Sunday, February 4, 2018

The Chicago Way (Obama's Power Play)

Key to understanding the unraveling of Obama's Power at Any Cost, American Be Damned, is an article by Michael Gecan - who worked as a community activists in Chicago and understands first hand the manipulation of the Obama administration:

The first quarter of the Obama administration is finally over. The key issue was not health care, not terrorism, not jobs. Nor was it the promise of “transformational change” that permeated the presidential campaign. The key issue was power—how the power of Washington’s political culture would respond to the power of the Chicago political culture imported by the Obama team.
When the media mentioned the administration’s “Chicago tactics” or when opponents complained that the White House staff behaved like “Chicago pols,” they were saying that the Obama team could be aggressive, tough, even mean.
That mild and broad critique missed the more important features of the Chicago way of doing politics: an approach that translated brilliantly in the presidential campaign and miserably after the inauguration. Here are those features—as I’ve observed them for 50 years, first as a young person growing up in a blue-collar Chicago neighborhood, then as an organizer in Chicago, New York, and elsewhere—and a look at how Washington has responded to their presence.

1)  The Man on Five. The mayor’s office in Chicago is on the fifth floor of City Hall. The Man on Five is the hub, center, source of all good, generator of all punishment. This has nothing to do with charisma. The two mayors named Daley and most other machine mayors have had little personal pizzazz, no speaking skills, and a more transactional than transformational approach. Decade after decade, they have methodically consolidated and centralized power and influence. There is no counterweight—no House of Representatives, no Senate, no independent committee chairs. The City Council is a vaudeville show directed by the mayor. His power is unilateral, one-way, top-down. The key White House staff—Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, and Valerie Jarrett—inhaled this culture and carried it with them to Washington.

2)  Control is God. The organizing principle in the Chicago political culture is control—control of who gets to the Man on Five and who doesn’t, control of how a bill or event burnishes the mayor’s myth or doesn’t, control of who runs for other offices and who doesn’t. The mortal sin of this culture is independence based in any value higher than loyalty to the Mayor.

3)  Elections Mean Everything. The one thing that the political machine excels at is managing the electoral process from start to finish. Selecting and grooming candidates. Buying or scaring off reformers. Marshaling election lawyers to knock out other candidates’ petitions. Using only paid public employees to work (illegally, but with almost no chance of being caught and prosecuted because of the care taken to avoid detection) in campaigns and on election day. Filling vacancies produced by indictments and convictions of insiders with even tighter insiders. Nobody does it better. This is why the presidential campaign did so well in caucus states and less well in those with open elections: the machine thrives on narrow or limited voting situations.

4)  Other People’s Money. The Chicago political culture is run by families or tribes—Daleys, Strogers, Madigans, Mells, Jacksons, and others—that have been on the public payroll for as long as 85 years. Most members of these tribes have never earned a dollar in the private or nonprofit sectors. They have grown accustomed to drawing their salaries from public agencies, sequestering and spending tax dollars, and using their public positions to grow even richer as lawyers and consultants to private interests who need public favors, ultimately drawing pay for their private efforts from the public coffers. Back in Illinois, leaders of both parties—Democrats in the northern part of the state, Republicans in the suburbs and central parts of the state—have grown up in this culture, reinforced it, and prospered because of it. They take other people’s money for granted the way most people take oxygen for granted. Suddenly, the Chicago cohort finds itself surrounded by an opposition party and moderates within their own party who come from states and regions where there is no such sense of entitlement.
Does all this add up to the end of this administration, as some have suggested? Not at all. I’d argue this could mean that the administration, having squandered the first quarter, is finally ready to play.
But first it would have to draft some new players, remove most of the Chicago crowd and shed many of the political habits developed in a machine political environment.
Then it would have to stop playing by the rules set by the permanent elite in Washington and approach the nation’s core concerns in a very different way.
The administration’s proposal to create a new federal agency to hold financial institutions accountable is an excellent example of not doing things differently. It plays right into the hands of the Washington political and bureaucratic establishment. Until the late 1970s, the United States capped interest rates at 9 percent in most circumstances, and banks were still profitable. Since then, the economy has operated without fiscal speed limits. Reestablishing those limits on credit cards, payday loans, and other predatory credit vehicles would do more for the majority of Americans than another new agency or several thousand pages of regulations. The appeal for this basic restraint has been heard even by titans of finance: the CEO of Citigroup surprised the financial industry by recently agreeing that a cap on interest rates, with certain conditions, would be possible.

 As presently constituted, the White House cannot undertake these sorts of necessary and far-reaching initiatives. The president packed his staff with those who grew up in the unique political culture of Chicago and Cook County, one of the last remaining islands of machine domination in the nation. When the machine went to Washington, it did what it has always done and what worked back home: try to crush or co-opt opponents, project and promote the image of a mythic leader, tightly control the media, and rely on those who helped win the election. The disarray that the administration finds itself in after its first year is a direct result of the failure of this culture to function under new circumstances.
Different players, with a different approach, can tackle the lingering and deepening problems that plague huge numbers of Americans. These Americans have a mind to work and are waiting to support and lead effective action.
After all, power, properly understood, is still just that: the ability to act.

Related: Obama stacks Department of Justice with cronies from elite law office; not with Justice as goal, but with blackmail.