McCabe strikes again, says Trump is a Russian asset

The New Neo Posted on by

McCabe is beating the same old drum:

Andrew McCabe, the former FBI Deputy Director who Donald Trump fired in 2018, said on a podcast that the former president was a “de Facto Russian asset.”

When Sir Richard Dearlove, a former head of MI6, the British intelligence service, and co-host of the “One Decision” podcast, asked him if he thought Trump was a Russian asset, McCabe responded, I do, I do.”

Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired McCabe in 2018 on the recommendation of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for making “an unauthorized disclosure to the news media” and testimony that “lacked candor” in the FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation.

McCabe continued, “I don’t know that I would characterize it as [an] active, recruited, knowing asset in the way that people in the intelligence community think of that term. But I do think that Donald Trump has given us many reasons to question his approach to the Russia problem in the United States, and I think his approach to interacting with Vladimir Putin, be it phone calls, face-to-face meetings, the things that he has said in public about Putin, all raise significant questions.”

In other words, Trump was not a “Russian asset,” but we can call him that because he “gave us many reasons” to question his policy toward Russia. We disagree with him on policy, so we can smear him as a traitor.

Why do I bring this up? From conversations I’ve had, there are a number of voters for Kamala who detest Trump because (among other things) they are absolutely convinced he’s a Russian asset. This comes not just from things like the Steele dossier, which they may or may not still believe is real, but more importantly from statements of people like McCabe, as well as the idea that gazillions of Russian bots are online in social media trying to elect Trump.

Here’s the official word on the bots:

“Russia is contemplating how U.S. electoral outcomes in 2024 could impact Western support to Ukraine and probably will attempt to affect the elections in ways that best support its interests and goals,” the intelligence community said in its annual assessment of global threats.

“Russia’s influence actors have adapted their efforts to better hide their hand, and may use new technologies, such as generative AI, to improve their capabilities and reach into Western audiences,” according to the assessment, which was presented to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Monday.

Russia will continue to employ information warfare to try to divide Western alliances, undermine America’s global reputation and “sow domestic discord, including among voters inside the United States and U.S. partners around the world,” it said.

Remember when the WalkAway movement got going and the Democrats said – falsely – that it was Russian bots? Or, of course, when the Hunter laptop story was Russian disinformation? Good times; good times.

The debate: the supposed intelligentsia versus the commoners

The New Neo Posted on by

It seems that the Trump-Harris debate really highlighted this already-existing divide. It may even be particularly wide between the media and undecideds. I can’t say I know the characteristics of undecideds at this point, but they exist and they are exceedingly important in a close race (once we put aside the possible fraud factor, which is a wild card).

There are polls in which people say Kamala won the debate but that doesn’t make them vote for her. That’s not so hard to understand, because life in the real world is not a debate, complete with mugging, lies, and moderators who control the questions and the flow. The gist of what I’ve seen is that a great many undecideds were annoyed that Kamala gave out little of substance during the debate concerning her proposals for what she would do as president. They wanted the nuts and bolts, and she didn’t provide it.

Speaking of moderators and control, these guys do a good job of analyzing – in enormous and yet entertaining detail – what happened at the hands of the debate moderators on Tuesday night. When I say “entertaining,” what I mean is that the podcasters all have a good sense of humor, not that the moderator bias itself was the least bit amusing. The video is over an hour, but well worth it (I listened to it speeded up, and you can do that if you like):

Kamala Harris in 2020 on gun control by executive order

The New Neo Posted on by

I think this clip deserves a post of its own. It’s from one of the Democrats’ debates during the 2020 primary. Quite extraordinary:

On presidential debates

The New Neo Posted on by

First let’s talk about what happened last night.

I didn’t watch the debate, because – as I’ve said many times – I hate presidential debates and they make me very nervous as well. In this case, I expected Trump to do fairly poorly. I’ve watched clips of him in previous presidential debates, as well as watching some of the Republican primary debates during the 2016 campaign, and I’ve never thought he did well in any debate. It’s just not his thing at all.

On the other hand, although many people expected a giggly, airheaded Harris, I did not. As I’ve said before, she’s not stupid, although sometimes she sounds inarticulate and spacey, and she’s usually not direct in her answers. But for last night she was going to prepare within an inch of her life. Plus, she’s a lawyer with some courtroom experience, and almost all lawyers know how to debate, and those who have been courtroom lawyers must know ways to prevent themselves from succumbing to nervousness when needing to perform.

Because of the unusual schedule of this campaign season, there is no plan for the ordinary three presidential debates with the candidate (Biden no longer counts). That means much more was riding on this particular debate – way too much, because it may be the only showdown between Trump and Harris.

But even though I didn’t watch it, I got a sense that things weren’t going well for Trump because about twenty minutes into the debate I got a text from a relative that hinted at it. When I went to other blogs to look at comments there, I saw that most people were saying that Harris was doing rather well and that Trump was being goaded and getting angry; and besides, that the moderators were extremely biased. This seems to be the basic perception on the right, although some say it wasn’t all that bad and Harris didn’t score points on the “likability” factor.

Later I watched a few clips and was surprised that I was more in the “it wasn’t all that bad for Trump” camp. Obviously, what I saw was selected, and perhaps involved his better moments. But not only was he not that bad but Harris was mouthing meaningless and vague platitudes. In the clips I heard, she didn’t sound ditsy but she actually said nothing of any substance and didn’t answer the questions. It was like language as smokescreen.

The whole thing reminds me (not that I needed reminding) of why I detest debates and have detested them almost as far back as I can remember. Maybe the only one I was okay about was the very first I ever saw (and I believe it was the first televised presidential debate), Kennedy/Nixon. Did I really watch it on TV, or have I just seen so many photos and clips that I think I watched it? No matter. I was very young and already was biased towards Kennedy, since I came from a family of Democrats. But even then there was something about the format that seemed forced and phony to me and caused a sense of vague unease.

And come to think of it, I can’t remember the next debate I watched. Maybe a few minutes here and there of Reagan? Same for Clinton? I actually don’t remember watching any debates until 2004. And looking 2004 up just now, I discover that my third blog post, just a couple of days after I began writing this blog, was about a 2004 presidential debate between Kerry and Bush. Here’s the link, and I see from the content that I’m nothing if not consistent. The beginning of the post goes like this:

“When is a debate not a debate?”

When it’s a Presidential debate.

I’ve always hated these things, from the Kennedy/Nixon days. They make me nervous and they perplex me. Debating seems to be a skill that has nothing–absolutely nothing–to do with being an effective president. And of course these debates have nothing in common with actual debates, which are rhetorical contests with certain rules and regulations and have nothing whatsoever to do with action and decisionmaking, and everything to do with argument.

It’s twenty years later and I feel exactly the same.

I ended the post back then with this paragraph:

Bush seemed to be angry, though–not visibly, but underneath, and it made him rush his sentences more than usual, especially in the first half of the debate, and it made him seem confused and forced. And while it seems to me that Bush will be evaluated on his job performance by most people, I think this anger is a wild card in people’s reactions. Those who are annoyed by Kerry will probably wonder that Bush wasn’t even angrier, and will give Bush points for forbearance. But those who find Kerry okay will wonder what got Bush’s goat. As for me, I think I know.

The large question is : why would I (or anyone) care much about how good a presidential candidate is at debating? To me, it’s a very specific and lawyerly skill, but one that doesn’t translate into right action. And it’s decisive action, good judgment, and leadership we want in a president, as well as the ability to negotiate and persuade, using force when necessary and compromise when necessary.

Debates also can turn on things like charm and physical attractiveness, and/or the ability to get in a sound bite or a memorable phrase. And although I like a good turn of phrase as well as anyone (Churchill and Lincoln were masters, for example), there haven’t been many memorable candidates of that sort in a long long time.

But perhaps worst of all is the role of the press. They are given far too much opportunity to put their thumbs on the scale, and they are adept at doing it and more than willing to do it to help the Democrat. Always to help the Democrat. The first time I realized the strength of their ability to do that and their shamelessness about it was in the second debate in 2012 between Romney and Obama, the one in which Candy Crowley was a major player. I wasn’t watching that one, either, but I was listening to it on the radio in real time in a car because I was with someone who wanted to hear it. Later, I went back and studied the transcript and the clips and I was flabbergasted. Not only had Crowley intervened to help Obama and back up what he was saying, but it turns out that he was wrong (or lying) and that she was wrong (or lying).

I wrote several long posts analyzing the whole thing because I was so incensed; you can find the main posts here and here. I came to feel, after closely studying what had happened, that it was even possible that it was a pre-arranged setup between Crowley and Obama.

And Romney was not even Trump, of course – that is, he was not as hated by the MSM. But nevertheless they wanted to make sure he would not become president, and coverage of him was quite vile and of the “binders of women” type. Now the media and the Democrats are far more desperate to stop Trump from getting elected again. As for Trump, he can often be his own enemy. I would say “his own worst enemy,” except Trump has so many extremely passionate and ruthless enemies that the competition is fierce.

Then there is the question of how much presidential debates actually affect people’s voting decisions. Darned if I know. They have never affected mine, but the same isn’t necessarily true for most people. I have little doubt that they don’t change the votes of the committed voters for either candidate, but what of the undecideds? What are they looking for, what matters most to them, and did they find it last night?

It’s the 23rd anniversary of 9/11

The New Neo Posted on by

Hard to believe, isn’t it? And yet easy to believe, because in many ways it seems a distant memory. Children who were born that day are turning twenty-three.

But the main reason for the feeling of distance, I think, is that it’s no longer shocking that 9/11 happened. At least, that’s how I feel.

Here are a few videos I’ve found in which people talk about what they experienced on 9/11.

RIP to all who suffered and died on 9/11, and comfort to their families. And may our nation and the world emerge into better times than we’re experiencing now.

More Hamas leaders killed by Israel

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s the announcement [my emphasis]:

The Israeli Air Force (IAF) struck Hamas terrorists Samer Ismail Khadr Abu Daqqa, Ayman Mabhouh, and Osama Tabesh in a strike in Khan Yunis in the Gaza Strip, the military said on Tuesday.

The terrorists were operating within a terrorist command and control center embedded in a designated humanitarian area of Khan Yunis, the IDF added.

The military specified that Mabhouh was a senior Hamas terrorist, Abu Daqqa was the head of Hamas’s Aerial Unit in Gaza, and Tabesh served as chief of the Observation and Targets Department in the terror group’s Military Intelligence Headquarters.

The military further noted that all three had been directly involved in the October 7 massacre and had carried out attacks against IDF troops and the state of Israel.

Prior to the strike, the military assured that numerous steps were taken to mitigate the risk of harming civilians, including the use of precise munitions, aerial surveillance, and additional means.

Terrorists love “humanitarian zones,” the better to maximize any civilian casualties when they’re hit – or even better, to deter Israel from trying to get the terrorists at all. I often wonder just how Israel gets its intelligence, although I assume it’s in many difference ways. But I believe much of it is human intelligence, either from Palestinian informers or from Israeli agents who are undercover in the neighborhoods.

Dueling Kamalas

The New Neo Posted on by

You can’t quite call it a flip-flop. That’s too mild a word for Kamala’s recent attempts at a 180. Recently a questionnaire surfaced which she had filled out for the ACLU while she was a candidate in the 2020 Democratic primaries, trying to outflank Sanders and Warren on the left. It revealed a number of extreme positions she held, or said she held (who really knows with the mutable Harris?):

A resurfaced American Civil Liberties Union questionnaire from when Kamala Harris was running for president in 2019 has revealed that she supports gender transition surgeries for detained migrants and that she wants to slash funding from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The document, which was first reported on by CNN, also asks then-Sen. Harris for her views on topics such as the U.S. prison system, D.C. statehood, abortion access and the decriminalization of drugs.

She also was for legalization of all drugs. On DC statehood, she wrote this:

Q:Will you commit to supporting D.C. statehood? If so, please describe your plan to achieve D.C. statehood.

Yes X No ?

Explanation (500 words): I have co-sponsored the Washington, DC Admission Act which would admit DC to the union, and will fight to pass it into law as president.

So she didn’t just vote for it, she was a co-sponsor. As far as I can tell she’s never taken it back, either.

Any regular reader of this blog knows that I’m no stranger to the idea that people can change politically. But I would have a bit more faith that Kamala Harris was one of them if she’d been giving speeches right along about her new positions; she most definitely hasn’t done so. And all she’s said about her supposed change of mind and heart is basically this sort of generic pap:

“The Vice President’s positions have been shaped by three years of effective governance as part of the Biden-Harris Administration,” a Harris campaign adviser told Fox News this week when asked about her responses.

If Biden’s governance has been so very effective, then why is she running away from it? Her “explanation” doesn’t even make sense on the face of it. The only thing that’s really changed about Kamala Harris is that she’s the Democrats’ nominee for president, and she’s desperately trying to escape her former self.

The “ceasefire deal” dream dies hard

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s the report:

Nearly one year after the initial attack on Israel by Hamas terrorists, the Biden White House questions whether the Iranian-backed group even wants to make a deal that would result in a ceasefire and the remaining hostages being released.

According to U.S. officials, the Biden-Harris Administration has come to terms with the fact that Hamas may never want a deal as the terrorist group continues to hold back on accepting negotiation terms since its initial attack last October. The attack killed 1,200 people, in addition to the six hostages that were found murdered last weekend, including American citizen Hersh Goldberg-Polin, by Hamas.

Earlier this week, President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris met in the White House Situation Room with their national security team to discuss if a hostage-release and ceasefire deal is even possible — concerned that such an agreement is off the table.

“We still think the deal is the only way to save the lives of the hostages and stop the war. But the executions not only increased our sense of urgency but also called into question Hamas’ willingness to do a deal of any kind,” a U.S. official told Axios.

How stupid are they? Fools or knaves? Because it’s been obvious for more than twenty years that terrorists are not a “partner for peace” and in fact there doesn’t seem to be a Palestinian entity that is.

And why on earth would they be surprised at the murder of the hostages? Again, how stupid are they? Such murders are always a good possibility if Hamas – or any hostage-taker, really – doesn’t get what it wants in exchange for releasing hostages. Any fool could see that, too, right from the start. The hostages were always pearls of great price to Hamas if alive, but they were also useful not just to pressure Israel but to horrify it and break its heart and turn Israelis against the government when Hamas gets more brutal with them and publicizes that fact. Thus, the murders.