In the Stephanopoulos interview, the President did not say he would purchase such information, nor did he say he would make use of the information; he also was not asked about “stolen” or “hacked” information. Of course, the hearing of the Democrats running for President is far more acute than that of the average person, for every one of them heard that the President would condone stolen or hacked information – you know, much as the Democrats and the Clinton campaign condoned and in some case paid for, from foreign sources, in 2016. They all swear up and down that they would instantly refer directly and immediately to the FBI such an attempt to “interfere with the election,” just as they did in 2016 – when they sicced the Justice Department, through FISA warrants and by other means, on the Trump Campaign – even though the information in question was false, and was, “dirt” accusing Mr. Trump of various malfeasance and improper behavior. Of course, then it was “their” Justice Department, and fresh from its recent clearing of Hillary Clinton even though it was conceded that she had done wrong, the FBI was primed to find someone guilty, even if they had done nothing wrong.
Our hypothesis that President Trump gets in more trouble and causes himself more grief by tweeting, texting or making unguarded comments than he does for the policies he implements and for the changes he makes received support this week from, as usual, the President himself. Mr. Trump, in an interview with former Democratic Party and Clinton Administration insider George Stephanopoulos, allowed that he would want to listen to negative allegations concerning opposition politicians, even if those allegations came from foreign sources. Perhaps this is the same motivation that drives people to read People magazine, or “Page Six” in the tabloids, or watch reality TV – hoping to see something juicy or naughty. Or it could be that the information is accurate and verified, which could indeed prove useful to any politician or prosecutor under certain circumstances. Or, the information might be inaccurate and unverified – such as for example the information that the Clinton campaign “obtained” on Mr. Trump. No need to remind anyone how useful that phony information was to certain politicians or prosecutors in 2016.
In the Stephanopoulos interview, the President did not say he would purchase such information, nor did he say he would make use of the information; he also was not asked about “stolen” or “hacked” information. Of course, the hearing of the Democrats running for President is far more acute than that of the average person, for every one of them heard that the President would condone stolen or hacked information – you know, much as the Democrats and the Clinton campaign condoned and in some case paid for, from foreign sources, in 2016. They all swear up and down that they would instantly refer directly and immediately to the FBI such an attempt to “interfere with the election,” just as they did in 2016 – when they sicced the Justice Department, through FISA warrants and by other means, on the Trump Campaign – even though the information in question was false, and was, “dirt” accusing Mr. Trump of various malfeasance and improper behavior. Of course, then it was “their” Justice Department, and fresh from its recent clearing of Hillary Clinton even though it was conceded that she had done wrong, the FBI was primed to find someone guilty, even if they had done nothing wrong. By John Shaffer The House Democrats had John Dean, corrupt player in the Watergate scandal from 47 years ago, to “testify” on parallels between that Watergate scandal and the Trump/Russia collusion scandal. No two scandals, it may be said, are the same, but Mr. Dean didn’t have to exercise his imagination very much to come up with comparison likening Mr. Trump to Mr. Nixon. Of course, it was Nixon and Dean who did the Watergate spying, and Trump was the one spied on in the present scandal, but everyone is entitled to an opinion. From where we sit, Mr. Dean (who was convicted of obstruction of justice and was disbarred as an attorney for his “involvement” in Watergate) missed the most obvious and most significant comparison of all: both the Watergate scandal and the Trump/Russia collusion scandal illustrate the dangers when a powerful government decides to conduct an investigation of its political opponents. Just as the Nixon administration did to the Democrats back in 1972, so too did the Obama administration do to the Trump campaign in 2016 – and the Obama effort made Watergate look like a “third-rate burglary.”
By John Shaffer Graduation speeches have the reputation of either being forgettable or being rehashes of platitudes, or a chore that the graduates must endure before they can receive that diploma, but the 2019 graduates of Morehouse College will always remember their address, not necessarily for the words spoken by billionaire investor Robert F. Smith, but for his amazing generosity, for he announced that his family would cover the student debt of each member of the class. The expected sum of this magnanimity is expected to be around $40 million. Mr. Smith's gift should be praised and appreciated, and if nothing else it proves that venture capitalists are not all evil and wicked.
It also shows that, given there were only 400 members of this year's Morehouse class, college education is way too expensive, and massive debt is too easily taken on. At $100,000 per graduate, that $40 million accumulates rapidly; and let's not forget that we are in a time of federalized student loans. Can’t blame this cost on the banks, although Congresswoman Maxine Walters did exactly that at a hearing last month. Confronting CEOs of several large banks, Cong. Walters demanded they explain why there was such a huge amount of student debt. Amused, one said that his bank hadn’t made a student loan since 2007; another politely reminded Madame Chairwoman that the federal government took over the student loan programs in 2009. Not quite sharp enough to understand the significance of their answers, Cong. Walters plowed ahead, oblivious, as she is in so many cases, to reality. |
Local ColumnistsFind articles by date or topic through quick links below. Categories
All
Archives
March 2020
|