Tuesday's HOT MIC
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!
Yeah, we haven't heard a lot about him for the last couple of #MeToo months.
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?