Yeah, we haven't heard a lot about him for the last couple of #MeToo months.
Tuesday's HOT MIC
Here is today's HOT MIC.
Rhetorical question, right?
More from the original Daily Caller post:
And not only is Google’s fact-checking highly partisan — perhaps reflecting the sentiments of its leaders — it is also blatantly wrong, asserting sites made “claims” they demonstrably never made.
When searching for a media outlet that leans right, like The Daily Caller (TheDC), Google gives users details on the sidebar, including what topics the site typically writes about, as well as a section titled “Reviewed Claims.”Vox, and other left-wing outlets and blogs like Gizmodo, are not given the same fact-check treatment. When searching their names, a “Topics they write about” section appears, but there are no “Reviewed Claims.”
In fact, a review of mainstream outlets, as well as other outlets associated with liberal and conservative audiences, shows that only conservative sites feature the highly misleading, subjective analysis. Several conservative-leaning outlets like TheDC are “vetted,” while equally partisan sites like Vox, ThinkProgress, Slate, The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Salon, Vice and Mother Jones are spared.
As someone who was a friend of Andrew Breitbart (although we had a sometimes tempestuous relationship) and also of Larry Solov (Breitbart.com CEO), it's hard to see how Larry et al had any choice but to end Steve Bannon's tenure. Further, anyone who thinks Bannon commands any kind of serious loyalty now or constitutes any kind of threat to Trump is being foolish or ginning up an imaginary conflict. That's over. My guess is Steve B. is stewing in his own juices now, filled with regret and trying to figure out how to get back in Trump's good graces. Maybe he has a chance — look at the Trump-Graham relationship now — but I tend to doubt it. Only an idiot disses a man's family — especially to an obvious sleaze bucket like Michael Wolff.
Ivanka Trump praised Oprah Winfrey's anti-harassment speech at the Golden Globes.
Apparently this wasn't enough for the #TIMESUP crowd:
Ivanka Trump failed to acknowledge that one of the men for whom time should be up, theoretically, is her father, who has been accused by more than a dozen women of alleged sexual misconduct and was caught on tape bragging about sexual assault. Some of his accusers spoke out as recently as last month, renewing their allegations in light of the #MeToo movement.
Trump herself has been the subject of her father’s sexist behavior: In 2004, Donald Trump told radio DJ Howard Stern that it was okay to characterize Ivanka as “a piece of ass” and famously said he would be romantically interested in Ivanka if she weren’t his daughter. Last year, then-candidate Trump said he thought his daughter should change jobs or careers if she were sexually harassed at work — not that the harasser should be held accountable.
Sheesh. Some people just can't take "yes" for an answer. Ivanka is not guilty of sexual harassment. But because of her father's questionable past, this somehow discredits her support? Where's the logic in that?
Some have pointed to this statement of "questionable" advice to women who may be sexually harassed.
Ivanka gave women some questionable advice for dealing with sexual harassment in her 2009 book, The Trump Card: Playing to Win in Business and in Life: “Learn to figure out when a hoot or a holler is indeed a form of harassment and when it’s merely a good-natured tease that you can give back in kind.”
Sounds like common sense to me. But then, I'm not a woman and don't get harassed. I'm sure some women are very uncomfortable having their sexiness and good looks commented on like that. I'm also sure that others enjoy the attention. Since most of us aren't mind readers and don't know what the reaction to a wolf whistle or catcall might be, good manners demand that we refrain from doing it.
Unless manners, too, are "sexist" in which case why should we care what women think anyway?
Stepping down, you say?
It's probably pointless to speculate about whether he was forced out of chose to walk away, but this move does beg some questions:
- How will the MAGAs react? Thus far in the Great Trump-Bannon War of 2018, we've seen them back Trump almost to a person. Their loyalty is to the Big Man, not to his consigliere.
- Where does Breitbart go from here? Trump is hinting he'll make a DACA amnesty deal with Chuck Schumer and maybe even bring back EARMARKS of all things. Is the new Bannonless Breitbart going to push policies that are important to their readers (such as they are) or will they continue to prop up Trump no matter what he sells out on?
- How will this shake up the conservative(ish) media landscape? Do readers of the second most popular conservative website on the Internet now wander off to other sites? The answer to that question will depend on #2.
- What happens with the Drudge-Bannon feud. Will Drudge reward Breitbart sans Bannon with pats on the head in the form of links?
Stay tuned and pop lots of popcorn.
UPDATE: We may have an answer to #4:
UPDATE #2: Breitbart vows to work together with Bannon for an "orderly transition."
Bannon: “I’m proud of what the Breitbart team has accomplished in so short a period of time in building out a world-class news platform.”
Breitbart CEO Larry Solov: “Steve is a valued part of our legacy, and we will always be grateful for his contributions, and what he has helped us to accomplish.”
UPDATE #3: Allahpundit speculates on the questions above:
In theory Bannon’s ouster and the purging of loyalists is a chance for Larry Solov and the Mercers to reboot the site. In practice doing that would be highly risky given the traffic they’d stand to lose from alienating readers who expect a certain product, particularly knowing that Bannon will be out there looking to gobble up any consumers who dislike the new direction. The lesson of his defenestration by Trump is that you don’t cross Trump and survive in the populist ecosystem. Whatever Breitbart does now, whether it’s more media-oriented a la Andrew Breitbart’s vision or more political a la Bannon’s, it’ll have to be slavishly pro-Trump as well in order to retain its market edge. I’m sure the Mercers, who spent a lot of money helping make Trump president, wouldn’t want it any other way.
If Trump is impeached it won't be for anything he did when thinking about running for president. It won't be for anything he did while running for president. It won't be for anything that happened during the campaign or the presidential transition or in his first year in office.
If Trump is impeached, it will be for his wheeling and dealing in the real estate and financial world before he even thought of running for president.
Michael Wolff, author of "Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House," said administration officials and Trump confidantes he spoke to do not think the president colluded with Moscow to win the 2016 election. However, they think if special counsel Robert Mueller looks into Trump's finances, it could be perilous for the president, Wolff claimed.
"People don't think in the White House — don't think that he colluded with Russia. … They do think that if the investigation goes near his finances, he's sunk. Everybody, again, to a man," Wolff said in a "Squawk Box" interview.
Walking a legal line to make money is how many rich people get rich. This is especially true in the kind of big real estate deals engineered by Trump. The "irregularities" that may be in some of the president's deals wouldn't register on a local district attorney's radar, but then, Mueller doesn't have to build a case to go to a jury trial. He needs to build a political case against the president that suggests wrongdoing.
Mueller will get his presidential scalp any way he can.
Paula, now that this nightmare is over I think we need to install some sort of telegraph backup system. Then we need to learn Morse code. Also, I may need some trauma time off. Do we have that?
Thanks, Paula, now I know Slack was lying to me again:
No Slack, NOT okay.
First of all, stop groveling -- it's undignified. And be honest for once, Slack -- the problem is on YOUR end.
The scene at PJM right now with the Slack outage:
Hardest hit: Stephen Kruiser.
From the junk email folder today:
Tom Steyer Buys Copies of “Fire and Fury” for Every Member of Congress
So an uber-rich billionaire (net worth $1.61B) marched into the House office building and handed a copy of Fire and Fury to an uber-rich millionaire (net worth $29.35M). If they care so much about getting Wolff's message out, why don't they deliver the books to poor people in their perpetually failing Democrat-led districts? These elitists are just adorable, aren't they?
Because we don't want to upset the murderous terrorists, remember?
Much of Europe is behaving like occupied territory. My daughter wants to study abroad this summer and I've expressed reservations about many of the options in Europe. Too bad she doesn't speak Polish, a summer in our ancestral homeland would be safer, at least.
Bruce Ohr, the demoted DOJ official with ties to Fusion GPS, has been demoted again. Fox News reports that "it is unclear where Ohr has landed, only that he is still an employee with the Department of Justice."
A Justice Department official demoted late last year for concealing his meetings with the men behind the anti-Trump “dossier” has been stripped of yet another title, Fox News has learned.
Bruce Ohr is no longer head of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force.
One DOJ insider joked that Ohr might end up in “one of those offices without a phone.”
Fox News has also confirmed that Bruce Ohr, as the head of OCDETF, was directly involved with Project Cassandra, the interagency investigation spearheaded by the DEA that tracked a massive international drug and money laundering scheme allegedly run by Hezbollah.
Ohr's wife Nellie, you may remember, worked for Fusion GPS, specifically to do research related to the dossier.
Ohr has agreed to visit the House Intelligence Committee on Jan. 17 for an interview, Fox News reports.
As surely as summer follows spring, mud season follows fire season in California:
Chaos swept California's Santa Barbara County on Tuesday after a powerful overnight storm hammered the region with heavy rains, leading to the deaths of at least six people and triggering multiple water rescues, authorities said.
Among the hardest hit places has been Montecito, a wealthy community sandwiched between the Pacific Ocean to the south and the Santa Ynez Mountains to the north, where "massive" runoff sent mud and debris slamming into homes, said Santa Barbara County Fire Department spokesman Mike Eliason.
The circumstances surrounding the deaths in Santa Barbara County were not immediately known, but were connected to the storm, local sheriff's and fire officials said.
For all its beauty and gorgeous weather, California is a tricky place in which to live. The key to its successful settlement was American technological innovation and mastery, creating a stable fresh-water supply via dams and reservoirs, drilling for oil, and clearing the brush and deadwood from around towns that otherwise could never have survived -- Los Angeles, for example. It was the muscular conquest of nature that made modern California possible; whether the lotus-eaters that currently populate the coast understand that is highly unlikely.
Where's his hat and corncob pipe?
This paragon of virtue is accused of scamming the federal and New York City governments out of tens of thousands of dollars, and then obstructing the federal investigation into her crimes.
This is particularly egregious:
According to the indictment, she falsely claimed that her house had been so badly damaged she was forced to relocate. To back this up, she submitted fake lease agreements and rent payments for a separate residence in Staten Island.
According to the New York Daily News, Harris used the money for vacations, cruise tickets and her lingerie bill at Victoria’s Secret.
My response to Chuck Schumer on DACA:
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence members gained access to all Department of Justice and FBI documents it possesses on the Trump dossier, The Daily Caller News Foundation has learned.
The committee was able to review Friday all FBI and DOJ documents on the Trump dossier, former MI-6 British agent Christopher Steele who authored the dossier, and Fusion GPS, the political opposition firm that hired Steele. DOJ also provided any Obama administration applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court based on the dossier, which could approve the surveillance of the Trump transition team or Trump associates, according to a source with direct knowledge of the case.
The information could serve as a key breakthrough in the committee’s investigation of Steele, Fusion GPS and the Russians who influenced the dossiers’ contents.
I'll say. At this point, the only important question about this phony "dossier" is whether it was fabricated specifically to support a FISA application in order for the Obama-Clinton Democrats to spy on the Trump campaign. And if you think that's crazy, consider that James Comey deliberately leaked his private memos to the media in order to provoke... the Mueller investigation.
Joe Arpaio is going to be the next Roy Moore -- if he makes it that far, which I hope he doesn't.
BTW, this tragicomic Vaudeville campaign is the price the GOP must pay for Trump's ill-considered pardon of the disgraced former sheriff.
UPDATE: I'd forgotten about this excellent Jon Gabriel (of Ricochet fame) piece on Arpaio from last August:
America’s self-proclaimed “toughest sheriff” was convicted of criminal contempt of court last month after refusing to obey court orders. This most recent legal battle involved numerous federal attempts to get Arpaio to stop racially profiling residents of Maricopa County.
Not only did Arpaio refuse, he bragged about it: “Nobody is higher than me. I am the elected sheriff by the people. I don’t serve any governor or the president.”
Many conservatives outside of Arizona celebrated his headline-grabbing antics, but they don’t know the real story. I’m a conservative Maricopa County resident who has lived under Arpaio throughout his decades-long reign. Arpaio was never a conservative; he just played one on TV.
I saw his love of racial profiling firsthand, especially on my daily commutes through the tiny Hispanic community of Guadalupe, Ariz. When conducting these “sweeps,” helicopters buzzed houses, an 18-wheeler marked “Mobile Command Center” was planted in the center of town, and countless sheriff’s deputies stood on the roadsides, peering into the cars rolling by. Being Caucasian, I was always waved through. The drivers ahead and behind me weren’t so lucky.
Washington’s laxity in border enforcement led many right-of-center Americans to appreciate more robust enforcement, even when it regularly included authoritarian scenes such as the one in Guadalupe. But even if you turn a blind eye to the human cost of such race-based enforcement, Arpaio’s other misdeeds are legion.
During one three-year period, his Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office didn’t properly investigate more than 400 alleged sex crimes, many of them involving child molestation.
In all, the department improperly cleared as many as 75% of cases without arrest or investigation, a fact outlined in a scathing report by the conservative Goldwater Institute.
Arpaio's main talents are abuse, neglect, and self-aggrandizement.
I'm so tired of all this winning.*
Trump at NCAA Football Championship.
Liberals were giddy that the audience booed President Trump at the football championship last night. But the video sounds more complicated.
That sounds like an equal amount of cheers and boos to me. People were excited, one way or the other.
By the way, here's the Alabama MVP thanking someone else for his big break...
This video is making the rounds on Twitter this morning:
Allhapundit says it will "heal America" (pretty sure he was being sarcastic). Others aren't sure what they just saw. Because it focuses on race (and furniture!) it's being called racist. But is it really? Comedians Rhett and Link, who created the video, say no.
We knew this video was going to be controversial. Anytime race is discussed in any capacity, controversy ensues. The racial reconciliation concept was a joint effort between the Red House staff and us. They pointed out the fact that their employees and customer base were like the "Rainbow Coalition", and we thought something with a comical racial reconciliation theme would be fun, as well as a conversation starter. For those of you who think this video is racist, we'd like you to distinguish between "racist" and "racial". Racism is "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races." Racial is "of, relating to, or based on a race". This video is very obviously racial as opposed to racist. This video doesn't promote or feature hatred or intolerance. Rather, it's the very opposite. This commercial promotes inclusion and reconciliation, if not in a comical way. To point out the obvious, the irony in this video is that it's completely ridiculous for people to relate furniture to their race. People of all colors are welcome at the Red House, which is something that is taken for granted today, but there was a time in the not-so-distant past during which things as simple as a water fountain were NOT for everyone. If Saturday Night Live, Mad TV, or Dave Chappelle for that matter, were to address racial issues in a comical way (something that they all do VERY regularly), they would have pushed the envelope MUCH further.
Discussing race in the US is taboo. It always makes people feel uncomfortable. We think it's a shame that someone saying "I'm white" or "I'm black" creates such a stir. There are real cultural identities within different people groups, and these things should be celebrated and embraced, not swept under the rug. This video is an attempt to use humor to spark a discussion about race issues, because we still have a long way to go.
Sometimes the best way to address social taboos is to mock them. We can't have that "national conversation about race" everyone keeps asking for if, you know, we can't talk about race in any context.
The Babylon Bee cuts to the quick as usual:
"Nation's Progressives Now in Favor of Electing TV Personalities as President"
They also have a list of 2020 presidential candidates to watch, including Jerry Springer, The Hanson Brothers, and "the nation's collective sense of existential dread." Read the whole list here.
If it's politics without policy, Oprah! wins.
Ricochet's Michael Graham has a great op-ed in the Boston Herald this morning, laying out the strengths of an Oprah Winfrey candidacy. Here's a snippet:
Hey, she’s a bigger celebrity than Donald Trump. She’s a more successful woman than Hillary Clinton and has a more traditional experience as a black American than Barack Obama. And she did all this without a rich daddy, a powerful husband or an Ivy League education. The only way Oprah could be a stronger candidate would be if she’d served in the military. And if she had, she’d probably have Jim Mattis’ job by now.
And check out the polls: Last March a Quinnipiac poll found voters gave Oprah a 52-23 percent favorability rating. A theoretical head-to-head match-up by Public Policy Polling around that same time had her beating President Trump 47-40 percent, and that was when The Donald’s approval rating was still above 40 percent.
Businessmen like her because she’s a billionaire ($3.6 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index). Stay-at-home moms love her because she talked to them on TV every day. Rich people like her because she’s a limousine liberal. Poor people because she used to ride with them on the bus.
But what would Oprah actually do as president? No one cares, Graham suggested.
That's an interesting point about our political moment: Democrats voted Obama to feel good about electing the first black president. Republicans voted Trump to stick it to the establishment (and especially Hillary Clinton). But there's another way of doing politics — voters actually caring about policy and what a president would actually accomplish.
Ironically, I don't think Graham is entirely correct. Republicans did also want Trump to cut the size and scope of government (especially taxes), pull back from "disastrous" trade deals, finally keep the government's promise by building a wall — and even move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. These policies are popular among Republicans (the trade issue much to the chagrin of libertarians). But Graham is right that Obama and Trump won because of their personalities more than their platforms.
Oprah indeed could win, and she may be an electoral juggernaut (if she chooses to run). But the complex discussion of what she would actually do, and why she wanted to be president, are not to be dismissed. Leftist allies of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have already raised objections about her political philosophy...
I discussed my recent story about what might be Oprah's biggest weakness — a photo you can see here — with Graham on his podcast released this morning. It was a great discussion. You can read the rest of Graham's article here.
Oh fer cryin' out loud.
This is a real thing, apparently.
The Committee to Protect Journalists named President Trump as the winner of its “Overall Achievement in Undermining Global Press Freedom” award in its “Press Oppressors” awards Monday.
The committee released a list of top global press oppressors on Monday in response to Trump’s upcoming “fake news” awards, giving Trump the top honor.
“While previous U.S. presidents have each criticized the press to some degree, they have also made public commitments to uphold its essential role in democracy, at home and abroad,” the committee wrote.
“Trump, by contrast, has consistently undermined domestic news outlets and declined to publicly raise freedom of the press with repressive leaders such as Xi [Jinping], [Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan, and [Abdel Fattah al-]Sisi.”
Trump failed to utter the magic phrases which please the Press Elders, which somehow makes him worse than actual dictators who imprison (or worse) people who speak out.
Meanwhile, Jake Tapper made headlines on Sunday for shutting down an interview with Trump advisor Stephen Miller. And on Saturday, Vox editor Eliza Barclay made the case "for evaluating the president’s mental capacity — by force if necessary." I could go on, of course, with the treatment given by the press to the current occupant of the White House -- and even compare it to how they genuflected to the previous occupant. I could also add that Trump hasn't imprisoned (or worse) a single journalist.
This "Committee to Protect Journalists" wouldn't recognize real oppression if it was a boot stamping on their face, forever.
P.S. I should have added that on the off chance that Trump (or any other President) started jailing reporters, you'd find the genuine resistance right here.
Good Tuesday morning.
Here is what's on the president's agenda today:
- In the morning, President Donald J. Trump will host a meeting with bipartisan members of the Senate about immigration.
- In the afternoon, the president will sign an Executive Order on “Supporting our Veterans during their Transition from Uniformed Service to Civilian Life.”
- The president will then meet with Secretary of Defense James Mattis.
Mueller wants to talk to Trump, Fusion GPS still investigating Trump/RUSSIA, Texts show FBI/DOJ leaking like a sieve to media allies
Yesterday, The New York Times ran a nice puff piece on Fusion GPS, the firm retained by Hillary Clinton and the DNC to dig up dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump. Fusion GPS hired a former British spook who obtained smut from RUSSIAN government agents. Buried deep within the piece we learn this:
But the work has not stopped. Fusion continues to look into ties between Mr. Trump and Russia, according to several people briefed on the research. Mr. Simpson’s specific areas of focus, and information about any current benefactors, are closely guarded.
Interesting. Who is footing the bill for this "work"?
DANGER: Mueller wants to talk to Trump, according to a government bureaucrat leaking to the media. Last month, President Trump's lawyers sat down with Mueller to discuss how this might take place. DO NOT TALK to Mueller. One possibility is for Trump to provide written responses to Mueller's questions.
According to two sources familiar with the matter there has yet to by any formal request for an interview from the special counsel's office, and so far there is no firm time frame in which this could occur.
Meanwhile, congressional investigators are looking for leakers within the new treasure trove of text messages finally turned over to the committees. This might be the article referred to in the text messages below:
On Nov. 3, 2016, just days before the election, Page texted Strzok, and mentions a call she had with FBI Chief of Staff James Rybicki.
“Sorry Rybicki called,” Page states. “Time line article in the post is super specific and not good. Doesn’t make sense because I didn’t have specific information to give.”
Strzok, responds, “what post article?”
Page then states, “just went up. WaPo.” Page apparently was referencing an article in the Washington Post.
“Article is out, but hidden behind paywall so can’t read it,” Page texted Strzok on Oct. 24, 2016.
“Wsj? Boy that was fast,” Strzok texted back, using the initials of the famed financial newspaper. “Should I ‘find’ it and tell the team?”
Seems legit. More messages are coming; who knows what we will find in those.
PRESIDENT OPRAH: Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren hardest hit
After telling the world for two years how Donald Trump is an idiot entertainment personality clown not qualified to run or be POTUS, the Democrats have done a 180 and are now ecstatic about their own entertainment star possibly running for president. Amazing.
Following her speech at some award show this weekend, the Democrats/Hollywood degenerates are rallying around talk show host and icon Oprah Winfrey to challenge Trump in 2020. I have the utmost respect for Oprah as a businesswoman and a success story, but she's certainly no more qualified than Trump was and boy did we all hear how unqualified Trump was/is. Presidential campaigns are the nastiest endeavor. Does Oprah really want to risk her popularity and face the dirt and the hate that will come should she run for president? I don't think so. What would happen to her business interests?
DiFi is down with an Oprah run. Ivanka tweeted that she liked Oprah's speech. (BTW, what has Oprah done with her fame, fortune and power about sexual harassment in her own industry for the last 30 years?) Fake News CNN's Chris Cillizza is already imaging Oprah in Iowa.
The Daily Caller tells us what there is to know about Oprah's political positions.
James Damore goes after Google
White male James Damore, who was fired from Google because expressing his good faith thoughts and feelings on work-related matters was too offensive for his snowflake coworkers, has filed suit against the internet company.
Some of the horrific and unthinkable ideas Damore shared with his colleagues:
Damore says rather than basing hiring on gender, which he argues is inherently sexist, Google should: “stop alienating conservatives,” “de-moralize diversity,” “de-emphasize empathy,” “confront Google’s biases,” and “stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or race,” among other ideas.
Oh, the humanity!
Apparently, Google managers kept blacklists of conservative employees — and one manager even considered holding 'trials.' I'm speechless.
The most jaw-dropping allegation is that "Google publicly endorsed blacklists" of conservatives. The lawsuit claims that several hiring managers publicly vowed not to hire people categorized as "hostile voices" aka conservatives.
For instance, one manager wrote on one internal forum, "I will never, ever hire/transfer you onto my team. Ever."
Another manager wrote in another, "I keep a written blacklist of people whom I will never allow on or near my team, based on how they view and treat their coworkers. That blacklist got a little longer today."
It's impressive how the left has effectively deemed conservative political views eo ipso violent, provocative and creating a hostile environment. How many other corporations follow this same policy?
Another alleged practice of Google in the suit was to "boo" white men at company meetings.
Not only was the numerical presence of women celebrated at Google solely due to their gender, but the presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with “boos” during company-wide weekly meetings. This unacceptable behavior occurred at the hands of high-level managers at Google who were responsible for hundreds, if not thousands, of hiring and firing decisions…
I'm so angry right now, I'm going to stop typing.
[Alleged] sexual harassment update:
Historical picture of the day:
And that's all I've got now go beat back the angry mob!