How Ego Defined Scaramucci as the Media’s Bitch

August 18th, 2019

In July of 2017, during his shots stint working at the White House, Anthony Scaramucci was excoriated by the media as a foul mouthed goon.  After his controversial appointment as White House communications director on July 21st, 2017, White House. Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and spokesman Sean Spicer both left their posts over his hiring.

Then just a week after being named, he launched a strongly worded attack on Mr Priebus, calling him a “paranoid schizophrenic” in a conversation with a reporter.

In the same phone call, he also directed profanity-laced insults at Chief Strategist Steve Bannon. Mr Scaramucci later tweeted his regret at the “colourful language”, but the damage had already been done.

Undoubtedly Scaramucci was a train wreck as the White House communications director. He became a household name, largely thanks to his profanity-laden interview with the New Yorker. There was more scandal for Scaramucci as news of his divorce broke in the New York Post.

In his brief tenure, Scaramucci created headlines by threatening to fire the entire White communications team, and calling New Yorker reporter Ryan Lizza and accusing outgoing White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus of leaking information. “Reince is a fucking paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac,” Scaramucci told Lizza.

Scaramucci’s former wife, Deidre Ball, had filed for divorce. The New York Post said she was fed up with his “naked political ambition“.  It is that same ambition that has turned Scaramucci into the hero and darling of those who were bound and determined to destroy him in 2017. His need to remain relevant and be before the cameras has turned him into a prodigal Benedict Arnold.

BEFORE ITS TOO LATE

Aug 8th, 2019

There is no doubt that America currently stands as a nation divided. Divided by Race, Sexuality, Identity and Politics. A division that has been building for nearly a decade and has been fueled by an obsessive media and the social media platforms.

The Media, Politicians and even the FBI has segmented American society into the following Categories:

Left

Right

Far Left

Right Wing Extreamist

Black

White

Brown

Woman of color

Old White Men

Deplorable s

Trump Supporters

Pro-Life

Pro-Choice

…and it goes on, and on.

The nations FBI Director Christopher Wray has labeled Right Wing Extremist as “White Nationalist”, painting a virtual target on any white man or woman who believe in putting their Country first, above other interests.  The FBI’s reputation has suffered significantly with the Clinton Email Investigation and it’s upper managements engaging into what many would reasonably call an attempted soft Coup of the Donald Trump presidency.

The rhetoric coming from all sides and exacerbated by the mainstream media has lead to the frustration and anger on all facets of the segregated spectrum. Some have been spurred to shooting and stabbing sprees, while others lash out with hate filled and vitriolic rhetoric on Social Media platforms and cable news network shows. All of it reveal clear signs of a building anger and even hatred from the main facets of the spectrum’s, the Left and the Right.  The Hollywood elitists have even began displaying their vitriol deranged views and fantasies, into movies [See Image Above].  This is the point of where, as a nation, we have reached a DEFCON level of discourse in America.

Entrapment

While there is much talk about the alleged “Obstruction” of the Robert Muller investigation [Otherwise known as the “Which Hunt” by 19 angry Democrats] and it’s use as a basis for the impeachment of sitting President Donald Trump, few have pointed up the obvious. Even absent the flat out denial of any obstruction, which Trump has claimed, there would still be no basis for such a charge. This is also why it is important for Attorney General Barr to be able to complete an investigation as to how the whole investigation by Muller was spawned.

The Department of Justice Defines entrapment as follows:

Entrapment is a complete defense to a criminal charge, on the theory that “Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person’s mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute.” Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540, 548 (1992). A valid entrapment defense has two related elements: (1) government inducement of the crime, and (2) the defendant’s lack of predisposition to engage in the criminal conduct. Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 (1988). Of the two elements, predisposition is by far the more important.

This is why it is paramount that there be an “Underlying Crime” in most cases of Obstruction of Justice, though by legal standards it is not necessary to a claim of obstruction.  In the, admittedly rare instance, that a crime is manufactured and/or engineered for purposes of entrapment and is later used for a claim of obstruction is not only repugnant to our notions of justice, it is a ludicrous argument.  One can not, by legal standards, have obstructed a crime that was unlawful to begin with. In-fact, one would be expected to obstruct an unlawful activity. Doing so is the core purpose of every law enforcement agency in the nation.

In the case of the TRUMP investigation, a two year extensively investigated crime of conspiracy and coordination [otherwise commonly refereed to as “Collusion”] with “The Russians” , the Special Counsel Robert Muller found that there had been NO such crime. While we have our own theory as to why he concluded such findings [explained below] not withstanding, the underlying crime did not exist and can, by a preponderance of the evidence, be shown to have been a manufactured product of the FBI, any charges stemming from that particular investigation meets the threshold of “Entrapment” and thus is null and void.

In plain and simple language,  Law Enforcement can not “manufacture” a crime,  then charge someone with “obstruction of justice” for failing to, or interfering with, a crime that was unlawfully orchestrated to begin with. That would be like selling someone a car that didn’t exist, then trying to sue them for not paying for it.

WHY MULLER CONCLUDED NO COLLUSION

It is no secret that neither Muller, or his investigative staff, were no fans of Donald Trump. So one might ask why did they reach an conclusion of “No collusion”. It would have been easy to have manufactured some bit of evidence supporting a conclusion of collusion, or conspiring with Russian operatives, which would have been a criminal offense. But such a conclusion would have also triggered the right to “Due Process” of law, meaning the right to discovery…a legal term meaning to look into the evidence in which was relied upon and intended to prove the criminal element. While the American people [those who have been following the case] have seen and heard a lot of factors related to the “Trump-Russia” investigation, there is a lot they have not seen or heard. At least not yet.

This is perhaps why also the Democrat House of Representatives [who have the numbers] will not commence impeachment proceedings and instead want to conduct an “Impeachment inquiry” investigation. Once any sort of charges are levied against the President, his right to Due Process is triggered and thus he is entitled to the full  benefit of discovery. This discovery right might possibly turn up some very troubling issues for the FBI and our nations intelligence agencies….as well as the former presidential administration.

Conspiracy theory?

One has to ask themselves why then, from the leading democrats who have lead the charge for discovering the FULL Muller report with facts and evidence relied upon [Adam Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi, etc] have become so unhinged about President Trump’s declassification of the entire process that lead to the “Muller Investigation” to begin with.  If this was not a clear and apparent display of guilt of conscious then we can not imagine what would be.

The Muller Report – Hidden Takeaways

1. The Trump Trap

The Muller report states that the “Special Prosecutor” did not pursue Trump’s In Person testimony , accepting the President’s written questions instead, was because he had all of the answers he sought from other sources. If Muller already had the answers…..why then did he even seek the Presidents testimony to begin with?

ANSWER: It was a perjury trap.

2. Comey-Clinton Debacle

Robert Muller’s report essentially did the same exact thing to Trump as Comey did to Clinton. It made a bunch of damaging statements to a person who was not indicted or charged. This was frowned upon by the IG when Comey did it, yet Muller did it anyway. Birds of a feather.  While this practive has often been frowned upon by the Department of Justice, it appears to be becoming the new norm. A very dangerous and unfair one.

Ilhan Omar (D)

What has become of the Democrats Party – It’s not pretty

The Democrats and the Media [but we repeat ourselves] have resorted to their usual fall back position when confronted with the cold hard reality of what they stand for. They accuse everyone, including the President and an Iraq war veteran Navy Seal and now U.S. Representative for Texas’s 2nd congressional district, or being “Racist” for expressing outrage over freshmen [woman] Ilhan Omar’s comments before CAIR, a designated terrorist organization, refereed to the terrorist attacks upon the twin towers as “Some people did something”.  Ilhan Omar has been chastised on three prior occasions in her short time in Government service, for her antisemitic remarks and tweets.

The Danger of the Modern Mainstream Media

March 19th, 2019

The mainstream media in America has long enjoyed the prestige of having access to 100’s of millions of American’s, instantaneously, using the Airwaves and protected by what the nations founding fathers deemed thee most important protections…Freedom of speech and the press. That is why it is the 1st Amendment in our Constitutional bill or rights.  But it appears that the modern mainstream media has began to use that prestige and protection to leverage not only any narrative they choose to champion, but to also shape public opinion .

Having come to realize it’s power over peoples minds and opinions the mainstream media has used their platform to form the opinions they wish to promote. And, for the most part, it has worked. However, when these media giants began caving to politics, began being acquired by the rich and powerful with their own agenda’s, and have allowed themselves to be subsidized by the rich and powerful in order for those subsidizing to promote their own narratives and agenda’s, the mainstream media began losing it’s reliability as truthful, unbiased, sources of news.

When it all began….

It is hard to determine when, or how, it all began to go wrong. Some believe it was at the turn of the 21st Century, others believe it started around 2008 when the media became enamored with former President Barrack Obama. One thing is clear. The media began catering to social media sentiment, caring more about following the flow of the public opinion rather then being the honest and unbiased arbiters of news. This began to establish a dangerous, and often dishonest, precedent.

The Age of Trump

During the 2016 Presidential campaign there began a real shift in most of the nations Mainstream media. When, then candidate, Donald Trump won the Republican Nomination and Hillary Clinton won the Democratic Nomination, the mainstream media instantly switched into partisan mode. For decades, prior to the election, the media, daytime and late night television programs, seemingly adored Trump and often had him on their programs. They often praised him and spoke of his properties and generosity. Many even talked politics with him. Oprah Winfrey even encouraged him to run for president.

So what happened?  While most have long recognized that the Mainstream media has always leaned towards the Democratic party it has also, for the most part, remained relatively fair and minimally biased. It also actually reported news for most of its broadcast.  But that ship seemingly sailed with the election of Donald Trump as the President of the United States. Most of the Mainstream media seemed to go into full attack mode against Trump. At any given time one can tune into CNN, MSNBC and others and find some opinionated panel bashing Trump…with the exception a just a few remaining cable news stations.

Donald J. Trump

One example of the Media playing Politics, and not advocating for truth or news reporting, was recently exposed in this article [Pictured Left] in which a Reuters reporter struck a deal with a Congressional to hold off on reporting the candidates prior criminal hacking activities until after the election. Robert “Beto” O’Rourke, a Democrat, was attempting to unseat the republican incumbent Ted Cruz. This is just one example of the dangers the media has began to become to both News and Democracy. The “Reporter” [we use the term loosely] deprived the voters of a clearly important story and facts about a candidates criminality in order to help him try and defeat a republican. Not only is this clear bias, it is neglectful and a weaponized media. Weaponized against a political party in advocating for another.

It was also revealed in the pre-election release by Wikileaks, that the Clinton campaign has a cozy personal relationship with the press who were clearly advocating for her election. From off the record dinners with Clinton, to leaking her debate questions that would be asked of her so she could prepare a well scripted response. Some media outlets even emailed her asking HER for possible debate questions. Yes, seriously. It is clear from those emails that many in the mainstream media were colluding with the Clinton campaign to tilt the playing field in a Federal National election, in her favor. This it nothing short of interfering in a federal election.

Besides the obvious “Finger on the scale” in Federal elections there are other dangers in biased and false media reporting. As the chart [to the Left] points out in a very simplified manner, media reports are often relied upon by the Courts as a form of evidence, and are being utilized by a wantonly gullible Congress in the same manner. Anyone who has watched a senate hearing between 2016 thru 2019 will observe House and Senate members basing questions and assertions upon media reports, as well as submitting them into evidence as part of the record. When the reports are inaccurate, or flat out false, which has occurred numerous times in the between 2016-19, the dangers become costly in both tax payer dollars and peoples freedoms.

With almost three years touting how concerned it is about “Russian Interference in American Election’s” [Russia has interfered in many nations elections, for decades] the media has been much more intrusive and influential then Russia, or any foreign entity, could ever be. But don’t count on any special counsel being assigned to their Collusion with candidate Clinton or to investigate the Media’s interference  in our elections.

Editor Commentary

While the 1st Amendment must also be respected and reign supreme, the mainstream media’s use of the 1st Amendment in order to weaponize it’s influence upon the American people ceases to be freedom of speech and moves into the realm of State run propaganda. They have used their platforms to host opposition party members for the sake of feeding knowingly false narratives to the American public and shaping what most of the effected American people may believe are reliably informed opinions.

Fortunately, then candidate and now President, Donald Trump has drawn attention to the issue and the reporting of false and misleading news which has caused the American people to begin to questions the reliability and veracity of media reports which, notably, have become more and more based upon “Anonymous Sources”. While the media has always used Anonymous Sources it has never done so with so many salacious reports and so often.  A Gallup poll measuring the Public’s trust in the mainstream media’s reporting s reveal a drastic drop in the Public’s trust in the media.

  • 32% say they have “a great deal” or “a fair amount” of trust
  • 14% of Republicans express trust, down from 32% last year
  • Confidence drops among younger and older Americans