October 23, 2016

Robby Mook's sleight of hand about the Democratic operatives who manufactured violence at Trump rallies.

On CNN's "State of the Union" this morning, Jake Tapper confronted Robby Mook (Clinton's campaign manager) about Robert Creamer and Scott Foval, the 2 Democratic operatives who "were caught on tape talking about instigating violence at a Trump rally."
TAPPER: Have you looked into whether or not Democratic operatives paid by the Democratic National Committee were actually instigating these horrific actions, these violent actions we saw at Trump rallies? That's -- I'm sure you would agree, if that's true, that's really offensive.

MOOK: Well, violence is unacceptable. These individuals no longer have a relationship with the DNC. They have never had a relationship with the Clinton campaign. And my understanding is that the events that are referenced happened, I think, in February of last year. They didn't have a contract with the DNC until June. 
That doesn't get the DNC off the hook. Why were these people hired? They did something, and then they were hired. Were they hired because they'd shown what kind of dirty tricks they were capable of?
MOOK: But, putting that all aside, this was, again, a video that was leaked out for the purpose of damaging the campaign. It's edited, so we don't know what the full context is. And there is -- there's no evidence whatsoever that we have been able to find that anyone ever did anything like this when they were working for the DNC. 
Mook sounds so guilty there. He's mad that any video exists (because it hurts his candidate), and he's also telling us not to make any inferences about anything that isn't proved by video. Again, I'm thinking: They did something bad before they were agents of the DNC, so why did the DNC hire them and what did they do?

129 comments:

Brent said...

Thank you
Thank you
Thank you

You might possibly be the only liberal existing in the entire United States willing to call Hillary's campaign to account

Thank you

MayBee said...

If someone asked me if I'd had an extra marital affair, I would say "No. Never have"

I would not say, "There is no evidence that I know of that I have had an affair."
You don't need evidence to know if you personally did something or not.

Mike Sylwester said...

Tapper seems to be ignoring the media black-out of this issue.

jr565 said...

"It's edited, so we don't know what the full context is"

funny becaise I don't know how you could find a different context for what was stated than the context we assume. Because there is no other context thst can be applied.the idea that video was cut to make it seem like something that was shown wasn't what was said is ludicrous on its face.

Tank said...

Criminals hire criminals.

See, it's simple.

YoungHegelian said...

Expecting Robert Mook to own up to any of the mischief that the campaign has clearly had its hand in! Yeah, right!

One of the reasons to develop a wide-spread & distributed political machine is that it permits plausible deniability for a great many sins.

320Busdriver said...

Where is the outrage in the tape of the vote fraud operation?

Creamer visited the WH some 300 plus times and met with Obama over 40 times.

Discussion of purchasing used cars and registering them under some shell company to shuttle frauds between states.

How invested is our current president in blatant voter fraud ?

Thats what I want to know.

chickelit said...

Democrats run a Mook.

Bob Ellison said...

1) How was the evidence obtained?

2) Does the evidence convict the accused?

3) If there's a problem with (1), can you ethically ignore (2)?

The criminal justice system has struggled with (3) forever. It's the heart of the exclusionary rule, the Miranda rule, and other aspects of criminal defense.

Mook and the DNC, and even Marco Rubio, seem to be going for that as their main argument. This is unfair; you're being mean to us; you shouldn't be allowed to make these arguments. That's pretty much the argument against the Citizens United decision.

mockturtle said...

Per chickelit: Democrats run a Mook.

Indeed! :-D

Unknown said...

But trump is a monster,, right?

Michael K said...

George Soros was not reached for comment.

PB said...

Creamer is an Alynskyite with a long history in Dem circles of doing the dirty work. Well known around Chicago for it in fact. Mere association with him is proof of guilt.

glenn said...

Set em up in the other alley.

They got hired based on prior performance.

bgates said...

I don't know how you could find a different context for what was stated than the context we assume.

Veritas questioner: "Hey, do you think you could talk - animatedly and at length - about a series of unethical, illegal, and totally hypothetical actions that you would never actually take?"

Poor Innocent Democrat: "Don't mind if I do!"

but then the meanies edited out that exchange and made it look like the Democrats are a bunch of un-American crooks.

glenn said...

You know what really makes me mad. Last year I created a fictional character named Mookie to use on social media. Mookie is the guy who sits in the fast lane at 5 under or blocks the door at Trader Joe's while he chats with Babs. Mookie thinks he knows everything. I had Mookie all speced out. Then this guy shows up. Whizzed me off.

rehajm said...

Tapper seems to be ignoring the media black-out of this issue.

Tapper and the lefties are running prevent defense at this point.

Might work, might not.

Amadeus 48 said...

Creamer is married to Cong. Jan Schakowsky. This has the DNC's fingerprints all over it, working with the Clinton campaign. Thanks, Jake, but it's Chinatown. This is a preview of the next four years--nonstop agitprop--Just like the last 8 years.

mockturtle said...

Mookie is the guy who sits in the fast lane at 5 under or blocks the door at Trader Joe's while he chats with Babs. Mookie thinks he knows everything.

Does he drive a Prius or a Subaru?

Cacimbo Cacimbo said...

I agree with 320Busdriver. What was this man meeting with Obama about??? I am starting to think voter fraud is far more extensive than I ever imagined.

Mark said...

Classic Clintonism, same as we have gotten for over 25 years, never give a straight answer, but instead spin and obfuscate and attack, all the while guilt is clear.

And this is what we are going to get for the next four years. Dirty play, corruption, lies, and on and on.

320Busdriver said...

https://youtu.be/hDc8PVCvfKs

Rigging the Election – Video II: Mass Voter Fraud | Project Veritas Action

Filthy Animals Edition

Achilles said...

The democrat party is made up of enemies of freedom.

We will act accordingly.

Hagar said...

The stock reply from any Dem operative to Veritas tapes is that, "Well, the tape was edited, so you can not believe it," but I assume that this tape is like the previous ones; it was edited for brevity in TV clips, but the full tape is published at such and such a location if you want to check it for accuracy.

Robby Mook was on Fox News Sunday this morning too, and gave Chris Wallace the same run around when Wallace tried to pin him down about the Moroccan meeting fee, claiming you just can't trust those Russians, etc., then just giving him that rigidly fixed smile when Wallace pointed out that the information came from FOIA requests.

buwaya puti said...

Does it matter what he says?
He and his kind might as well be Tolkiens Wormtongue.
Why bother?
The man to talk to is his real master, whoever that is. It isn't Hillary.

Michael K said...

"The man to talk to is his real master, whoever that is. It isn't Hillary."

Soros doesn't give interviews. Not since his last one with the Nazis, at least,

Lyle said...

Got to vote Trump.

Night Owl said...

"That's -- I'm sure you would agree, if that's true, that's really offensive. "

Way to go Tapper. Some hard hitting journalism there. Offensive? I'm not a legal scholar so maybe I'm wrong, but -- if it's true -- wouldn't inciting riots be more than just "offensive", wouldn't it actually be illegal?

One's brain can't help but reflexively go to the thought: Imagine if GOP operatives were caught doing this? Imagine the media outrage; day after day front-page coverage; prime time lead-ins expressing their horror and disgust; calls for legal investigations.

And then the brain reflexively feels cynical and defeated knowing that these goons will get away with it because neither the Dem controlled media nor the Dem controlled legal agencies care to investigate when it appears to be Democrats breaking the law. And a good portion of the electorate doesn't care either, and will eagerly vote for more of it.

Basil said...

It's called lying. The guys went to the White House like 350 times. But he was NOT asked about that, was he? Cover up continues!

JAORE said...

Forget it Jake, it's Clinton Town.

campy said...

And this is what we are going to get for the next four years. Dirty play, corruption, lies, and on and on.

You misspelled "eight." Hope this helps.

JAORE said...

The rules are quite simple....


Rule 1: If the damning tape/video hurts Republicans, the substance, not the source, is important.
Rule 2: If the damning tape/video hurts Democrats, the source, not the substance, is important.

Michael K said...

The cult of the expert is ending soon.

It will not end well.

If World War C has actually started, there may be some doubt over whether to announce it. The risk of admitting to a threat has always been regarded as provocative by this administration. They're still trying to decide whether the USS Mason was actually attacked by missiles in the Red Sea. And even when the administration does decide to strike back they make to sure to announce their secret, covert action in advance never thinking someone might beat them to the punch.

The worst Ruling Class ever.

OldManRick said...

How come we can get any undercover tapes about Republicans inciting violence, suppressing voting, and committing dirty tricks? I'm sure the MSM would love to show that again and again.

Could it be that they learned with Nixon that they can't get away with it?

It comes down to this. If you believe that the nation needs laws that everyone follows, you have to vote republican. Nixon and Agnew were forced out for much less than Hillary and the DNC have pulled in this election and while she was SOS.

If Trump is elected and he pulls anything shady, he will go the way of Nixon - the Republicans, press, and Democrats will see to that. If Hillary is elected and continues her corrupt ways (hiding from FOIA, selling favors, lying by having "public and private positions"), she will skate just like Bill did - the press and the Democrats will see to that.

No offense meant, Ann, but I don't see how a law professor can stomach this level of corruption, lawlessness, and RICO activities. Women's rights will not be reversed under a Trump administration, the courts will see to that. The people rights, the rule of law, and the separation of powers will be reduced under a Clinton administration. She has already told us in her leaked "private positions" that she intends to silence her enemies, rule by executive order, continue to weaponize the bureaucracy, and would like to confiscate all guns.

This election is really a no brainer. Vote Trump and let the Republicans and press hound him out of office if he even slightly screws up. There are corrective measures in place for a Trump presidency, there are none for a Clinton presidency.

Jupiter said...

You want to know what Mook is thinking? Mook is thinking "Thank God -- well, thank Whoever -- they don't know about the *really* bad stuff!".

Night Owl said...

"Got to vote Trump."

Why not? Our govt system is already so broken and corrupt, how can one more sleazy cad make it that much worse? Instead, as it's been said numerous times, govt accountability will be back in style with a Trump presidency. How can that not be an immediate improvement?

I may as well vote for Trump just as a pointless protest against our corrupt govt-- pointless since he stands no chance in my state, so what difference does it make?

Fred Drinkwater said...

You all should be grateful that Tapper went even this far.
Yesterday, NPR spent 3-4 minutes of their news summary detailing Trump's recent woman-trouble "news", and then there was "Oh, yeah, Hillary's got issues too" and summarized ALL of the recent email / wikileaks news and all her other issues with these three words: She's being accused of "lack of transparency." Their exact words, and no more. No specific mention of Podesta, Wikileaks, email, Creamer, Mook, or anything else.
F 'em.

damikesc said...

funny becaise I don't know how you could find a different context for what was stated than the context we assume. Because there is no other context thst can be applied.the idea that video was cut to make it seem like something that was shown wasn't what was said is ludicrous on its face.

For his faults, Trump didn't excuse his comments about lack of context and how they were edited.

Sam L. said...

They did what they were paid to do, and the last thing they were paid to do was disappear.

n.n said...

Manufactured violence.
Manufactured social justice adventurism.
Manufactured immigration reform.
Manufactured liquidity schemes.
Manufactured [class] diversity.
Manufactured sexual strife.
Manufactured quasi-religious/moral reconciliations.
Manufactured votes.
It's all Planned.

Howard said...

What do you expect, the press also overtly helped Clinton steal the nomination from Crazy Bernie.

traditionalguy said...

Mook needs to get this right. Remember, the last millennial employee of Hillary's thug Team that hurt the Murder Queen's war effort suddenly turned up with 4 bullets in his back.

Harold said...

Again, I'm thinking: They did something bad before they were agents of the DNC, so why did the DNC hire them and what did they do?

All the above to ask a rhetorical question. We all know why and what, just not the full extent.

JAORE said...
The rules are quite simple....

Rule 1: If the damning tape/video hurts Republicans, the substance, not the source, is important
even if provably false.
Rule 2: If the damning tape/video hurts Democrats, the source, not the substance, is important even if provably true.

Added some just to make it clearer.

Night Owl said...

"Creamer visited the WH some 300 plus times and met with Obama over 40 times."

"What was this man meeting with Obama about???"

It does make one curious, doesn't it?

But really, there is no sense to even bother looking into it. No decent person would ever suspect that Obama would take part in voter fraud. He's such a lovely man.

Big Mike said...

That's right, Night Owl, you gotta feel the love.

tim in vermont said...

The worst Ruling Class ever.

It's a kakistocracy. But Hillary has a vagina, so it will be fine.

narciso said...

the fellow on the tape, corresponds to the payroll, and he is part of the david brock archipelago, fmr from correct the record, just like that fmr media matter tweeter about the baby being kissed, who ran campaigns against beck and rush, who is now a high official in the dnc.

bagoh20 said...

"3) If there's a problem with (1), can you ethically ignore (2)?

The criminal justice system has struggled with (3) forever. It's the heart of the exclusionary rule, the Miranda rule, and other aspects of criminal defense."


Not being university educated, I never understood this crap about fruit of the poisonous tree. Why can't we use the fruit if it's good and cut down the damned tree. What is wrong with punishing a cop who breaks the rules and also considering the evidence regardless. There is no such thing as poison that transfers from the method of discovery to the facts discovered. It some kind of witchcraft superstition, or "the law" if you will.

bagoh20 said...

What would the FBI think if a convicted drug dealer visited your house 300 times and they had him on video describing how to cook meth? Would that be a coincidence, or would they more likely bust down your door, shoot your dog, and drag you out in cuffs?

It sucks being just a citizen. You can't have any fun.

eric said...

Blogger Night Owl said...
"That's -- I'm sure you would agree, if that's true, that's really offensive. "

Way to go Tapper. Some hard hitting journalism there. Offensive? I'm not a legal scholar so maybe I'm wrong, but -- if it's true -- wouldn't inciting riots be more than just "offensive", wouldn't it actually be illegal?

One's brain can't help but reflexively go to the thought: Imagine if GOP operatives were caught doing this? Imagine the media outrage; day after day front-page coverage; prime time lead-ins expressing their horror and disgust; calls for legal investigations.


What I don't get is why doesn't Project Veritas do this?

It seems like it'd be so easy to do. Sit down with some Republicans, on camera. Lay it all out.

"We're going to take some fake video. It's going to be similar in tone and legality as previous video's with Democrats. We're filming this now so that later, after we've seen and compared media reaction to these video's, we can come back to this video and prove it was all a set up."

Doesn't seem like it would be hard to do. And then we could compare and contrast the different media responses to the Democrat Project Veritas scandals vs the Republican Project Veritas scandals.

narciso said...

because they will buy the lie and ignore the explanation,

traditionalguy said...

My theory is that Creamer does nails and toe nail manicures on his visits to the White House. His seeming to brag about dirty dirty tricks was standard podiatrist war stories. He was talking about having trained technicians whose are only violence is to toe nail fungus. And Okeefe is at the top of Hillary's fungus list now.

Fen said...

Night Owl: "so what difference does it make?"

The difference is the Hillary Clinton is above the law, Trump will not be.

If President Trump gets out of line, the MSM will eviscerate him and the Establishment will Impeach him before his blood is dry. They hate him. They will be on his ass 24/7 from day one. Trump won't be able to get away with tying his shoes wrong without them jumping all over his case. "LaceGate!"

But if President Clinton gets out of line, the MSM will censor the story and the Establishment will either cave or cover for her. Hillary is not accountable to anyone, as we just saw when she squashed an FBI investigation. She should be be jail, instead she has destroyed the credibility of the one proud and trusted FBI. Trump does not begin to have that kind of influence, power and corruption.

Hillary Clinton is above the law. If you care about the Republic or the Rule of Law, your only choice is to get behind whoever has the best chance of stopping her. Sucks that its Trump, I wish it were someone else, but even Hitler would be a better choice than Hillary - because he would be reined in by our checks and balances. Hillary will not be. She is accountable to NO ONE.

Hillary is above the law. She must not be allowed to gain the power of the Executive Branch. You thought the persecution of conservatives by the IRS was bad? Wait until Hillary weaponizes DHS, Treasury, ICE, DOL etc against you.

rhhardin said...

It's all nonsense anyway. Everything is made for TV women's vote. Morality doesn't figure in, once you're working in soap opera.

narciso said...

except for the fact that creamer was part of the rhodes road show, (the iran deal), and robertscare, previously,

Sebastian said...

"I'm thinking: They did something bad before they were agents of the DNC, so why did the DNC hire them and what did they do?" Does' require a whole lot of thought, does it? I mean, the "bad thing" they did happened to serve Dem interests, it's the kind of political thuggery Dems like, these guys appeared to be good at it, and there was minimal cost on the downside -- no MSM "reporter" was going after them, no investigation would hold them accountable. What they did is easily inferred from the evidence. The only question is how much of it they did. That, and what O knew and when he knew it. Not that anyone will put him on the spot. Political violence? Voter fraud? Doesn't happen in these US of A.

Sam L. said...

He fell in with bad companions, that he knew beforehand were bad, that he expected to continue to be bad, but NOT to somehow tarnish him. Leftists, after all, are just SO SMART.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Nixon was impeached for a lot less than what is known about Obama, the executive branch and what Clinton has done, that we know of at this time. Clinton is an existential threat to our political system and our freedoms.

Michael K said...

What I don't get is why doesn't Project Veritas do this?

It seems like it'd be so easy to do. Sit down with some Republicans, on camera. Lay it all out.

"We're going to take some fake video. It's going to be similar in tone and legality as previous video's with Democrats. We're filming this now so that later, after we've seen and compared media reaction to these video's, we can come back to this video and prove it was all a set up."

Doesn't seem like it would be hard to do. And then we could compare and contrast the different media responses to the Democrat Project Veritas scandals vs the Republican Project Veritas scandals.


Why would you need O'Keefe and his merry band ?

Hell, CBS would do it in a New York second if they could.

Why do you suppose we haven't seen it?


Hmmmm ?

tim in vermont said...

Say what you will about Adolph, he owned up to his Brownshirts.

buwaya puti said...

Its not this guy or that, or this crime or that.
It can't be reduced to individuals.
Its the whole system, the press, their owners, the politicians, their funders, the functionaries and their counterparts in the industries they regulate and the consultancies and NGOs they cooperate with, and the courts, of course.
The only bit of remaining honesty are some of the judges.

And the root of it all is the degeneracy of the public.

Fen said...

There is a simple way to put an end to this. A team gathers intel on Mook, Creamer and Foval. Were they live. How many kids they have. Where those kids go to school. Then the team executes those children. 6 months later the team executes the rest of the family, including Mook, Creamer and Foval.

Do this once and no Dem thug will ever use paid protesters to incite violence again. In fact, Democrat voter fraud will also miraculously stop, a few hundred corrupt politicians will decide to retire for reasons of health, and a few hundred more corrupt journalists will suddenly begin to back off the identity politics and bold-faced lies to the public.

We behave like these are people who simply have a difference of opinion. They are not. They are deliberately using violence to thwart the will of the people. They are Little Eichmanns, they kind of Leftist that will smile and wave as they report us to the Party to be led off to some re-education camp.

But we insist on remaining civil, peaceful and respectful. Its simply not good form to respond to thugs with thuggery. We don't want to fight back as we are led to the gas chamber, that would be uncouth and messy. Instead, we will show them just how classy and civilized we are when the Zyklon B begins to spray. That'll teach em!

"At least I didn't sink to your level!" we can crow as we choke to death.

"Look at me! I stood on Principle!" as we are hauled off to the Indoc Center for Undesirables.


That's what they mean when they call us Deplorables. You guys get that right? They are tagging us as Undesirables. What does History say happens next?

Oh my bad. Trump said something lewd about chassing pussy, in a private conversation 11 years ago. Do go on. And yes, that prison jumpsuit makes your ass look fat. Try the gray one instead.

CStanley said...

Asking questions on these shows now seems to be more of an opportunity for the operatives to provide the cover story than any attempt to get to truth.

I was only a child at the time so can't remember exactly how Watergate went down (I do remember endless news reports on radio at breakfast and on the nightly news but didn't understand what it was about.) What I definitely don't remember are televised interviews where Nixon's guys got to create a cover story and everyone shrugging and going, "OK, sure, could have happened that way I guess."

I know the party affiliation is a big part of this but it seems to me that the death of real investigative journalism is the other part. Wasn't there something about "following the money?" This particular issue looks ripe for that approach- there are obvious leads to follow if anyone wanted to find out the extent of the fraud and who is behind it.

Night Owl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rhhardin said...

All the dirty tricks are aimed at the women's vote. Women are easy to play.

Guys automatically think if some Trump supporter hits a protester, the protester probably had it coming.

chickelit said...

CStanley asked: Wasn't there something about 'following the money?'

I believe that the press could practice that in the old days because they were financially independent. Are they now? Hell, the NYT hasn't turned a profit in how many years? Ever wonder whose money they're really running on? It can't be subscribers' and advertisers' money.

"Following the money" may lead them right back through their own organization! How's that supposed to work out for them?

narciso said...

well creamer will go to jail to prevent the skim from ending, he's a convictable missapropriator of funds, and he was hired to design obamacare, subsequently,

rhhardin said...

Say what you will about Adolph, he owned up to his Brownshirts.

Probably steak sauce.

David Begley said...

Any fair and reasonable person would demand an FBI investigation. It would probably find that the DNC paid money for the violent disruption of the Trump campaign. Crimes!

Thank you Ann for highlighting this, It should be on the frontpage of WaPo, NYT and .WSJ. Top sttory on CNN.

"Dems pay money to violently disrupt Trump rallies. Lawless attacks on cops!"

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

Night Owl: "was a literal reference to the fact that in my one-party blue state - "

Fair enough. I apologize for the friendly fire. But try to understand that the last 30 or so times I have responded to the "what difference does it make" line of argument, it has been an assertion that there is no real difference between Hillary and Trump. That's why my auto-fire targeted you. I'll get it checked ;)

David Begley said...

The 3,000-5,000 who read this wonderful blog get it. That leaves 300m in the dark.

Ergo, Althouse needs a show on CNN. A hundred times more interesting than AC and Don Lemon. Don Lemon? Good grief!

Mary Beth said...

Was Mook asked what Hillary for America paid Zulema Rodriguez to do? (She was the woman in the video bragging about shutting down the Chicago rally and also about shutting the highway down in Arizona when Trump was there in March.) Was that bit of drama worth $1640.24?

n.n said...

the root of it all is the degeneracy of the public

It's twilight now. The rabbit hole goes deep. Very deep.

Bob said...

The Oxford dictionary says a mook is an incompetent or stupid person. I love it when a persons name reflects their real life.

Michael K said...

If, in spite of this, Trump wins and he might, there will be riots that make BLM mild.

It will an interesting few days after November 8.

I'm going to Tucson.

wildswan said...

Maybe all the information is getting out and slowly percolating among the voters like ground water. And then, Clinton loses. If Hillary lost it would be like hearing that the Titanic sank. They said of that ship "God himself could not sink it" but all it took was an iceberg. The ship was actually quite brittle due to errors in construction and so it snapped and sank quite quickly when it began to fill with water. Due to other errors in construction, it began to fill with water after being scraped by the iceberg due to the error of not posting a watch. And there were no lifeboats for the passengers due to overconfidence which was also an error. You never know.

narciso said...

no tapper doesn't follow up, that's not the job he's been tasked to do,

narciso said...

the journal will note this in passing,

https://twitter.com/devlinbarrett/status/790350274061803520

Laslo Spatula said...

Timothy McVeigh is unavailable for comment.

I am Laslo.

Roy Jacobsen said...

mook
[mo͝ok]

NOUN
US
informal
a stupid or incompetent person.

The first time I heard Mook's name, I thought they were pulling my leg. Turns out Mook really is a mook. And the DNC and the Clinton campaign are a criminal conspiracy. And the Lickspittle Media (TM) are complicit.

walter said...

Right..script writers would feel like the names were too obvious..Mook, Earnest..

walter said...

Let's not forget Barack Hussein Obama in a post 911 U.S.

Michael The Magnificent said...

I'm getting way too pissed off to publish anything constructive.

SukieTawdry said...

The Clinton campaign wants us to consider the motives (damage the campaign, influence the election) for releasing the video and hacked emails while ignoring the content. James O'Keefe, Julian Assange, the Russians, they're the bad guys. Pay no attention to the campaign behind the curtain.

narciso said...

like ragu spaghetti sauce,

https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/790358523305725952

Michael The Magnificent said...

And Fen, welcome back.

Mac McConnell said...

I see where Clinton has reached the $1 billion mark in her campaign, so who's for sale?

Michael The Magnificent said...

Dear counselor,

Do you enjoy your corporate-published books, DVDs, CDs, magazines, newspapers, television, radio?

Gonna suck when they are outlawed. But hey, corporations aren't people, or at least that's what I'm told by leftists. Enjoy your own dog-food, and while you're choking on it don't forget you asked for it.

Same goes for any executive order banning "assault weapons." Would be unfortunate if your neighbors called 911 on you claiming they saw you carrying in AR15s by the arm-full and have SWAT kick in your door, toss in a flash-bang, kill your dogs, and haul you off in cuffs while they search your house, but thats the tune YOU are calling, so prepare to pay the piper.

Fair is fair.

Jon Ericson said...

Doesn't matter
It's not their dog.
It's standard Wisconson politics.
They read the news.

rcommal said...

Herein this post and its comments is a reason why I think, specifically, that [as an illustration] Jake Tapper ought not be thrown under a bus--and, especially, precisely not gratuitously.

walter said...

The space under the bus is pretty crowded anyway..

Sunnykm said...

I check your blog, Ann, to see what the left is thinking. So happy to see this post tonight....but is it too late? Trump isn't my preferred candidate but once he became the nominee, I have been his supporter. And one of the reasons, is the check on what he does by the media, however, Clinton will continue on as before; calculating, scheming, persecuting those she disdains.

I'm scared.

km

walter said...

jr565 said...I don't know how you could find a different context for what was stated.

Yes.."out of context" is the new "dog whistle" or "racist!"

Better still is Donna Brazile's unique use of the the SJW revolver. Does she really think invoking Christianity works?
Yes..she is akin to Jesus..
Christ!

eddie willers said...

The 3,000-5,000 who read this wonderful blog....

So I'm talking, three days ago, to an old buddy I hadn't heard from in ten years and, of course we get around to talking about the election and such and I say, "I go daily to a little blog from a law professor in Wisconsin called Althouse" and he interrupts me and says, "The one with the "I am Laslo" guy?"

Could have blown be over with a feather. All I could think to say is, "He used to be Betamax 3000".

Chris Arabia said...

We don't pay mooks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TswwON_Hs1M

M Jordan said...

This election has reduced me to one comment for all posts: Trump must defeat these maggot-infested filth-bags.

chickelit said...

rcommal wrote: Herein this post and its comments is a reason why I think, specifically, that [as an illustration] Jake Tapper ought not be thrown under a bus--and, especially, precisely not gratuitously.

I threw Tapper under my mini-bus 3 or 4 years ago one night on Twitter when he churlishly responded to a tweet of mine.

But kudos to Tapper for mentioning Creamer and Foval on Sunday morning TV.

Reading the transcript, Kellyanne Conway cleaned his clock.

geoffb said...

Watching the video makes all Robby's points Mook.

Fen said...

"Fair is fair."

He's right Ann. If there is no rule of law, then why should the Right be the only ones who play by the rules?

Fen said...

Michael The Magnificent: "And Fen, welcome back."

Thanks man. Facebook has gotten really stupid. So I ditched it.

Now it's just Ace and Althouse. She's my Lot, the one reason that I'm not off the leash yet. We'll see :)

Clyde said...

Althouse wrote:
Again, I'm thinking: They did something bad before they were agents of the DNC, so why did the DNC hire them and what did they do?


Like calls to like. Birds of a feather flock together. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly. Pick one or all.

Fen said...

"The Clinton campaign wants us to consider the motives (damage the campaign, influence the election) for releasing the video and hacked emails while ignoring the content."

Interesting coincidence. I recently quit the SCA (Society of Creative Anachronism). Its a medieval recreation group. I had become an expert archer and was learning rapier.

But I caught a child molester. And none of the SCA "leadership" would do anything to stop him. Instead, the waged a smear campaign to destroy my credibility for bringing it up. Threats of violence, attacks on my marriage, threats of lawfare. I had to retain counsel at my own expense, and eventually whistle-blower protection from the FBI.

They tried to mark me as being "nuts". Which is true, but not in this instance. So to prove I wasn't making it all up, I showed them their own records going back 20 years, email evidence that proved they knew about the child molester and tried to create plausible deniability. And what was their biggest concern? Not the kids, nope. They wanted to know how I acquired Kingdom (Atlantia) records.... so corrupt, so morally bankrupt. And all Leftists too, Hillary supporters too. Go figure.

The molester? I hectored him into an early grave. I stressed him till his already weak health failed him. I'm kinda proud of that. Although I could have saved myself a lot of grief over 4 years by simply handling it with a baseball bat. Lesson learned. As Glenn says:

"When the responsible authorities fail to act, other forms of authority will assert themselves. They may not behave responsibly, but they will act".

So I'm beginning to realize that sometimes violence IS the answer.

Fen said...

"Timothy McVeigh is unavailable for comment."

I read that when he was casing his target, he deliberately checked out the child care center in the building. He knew there were children in the building, and he wanted the feds to feel what it was like to have *their* kids murdered.

If you recall, Clinton ordered Reno to use CS gas to end the Waco standoff. Even though the Army's top NBC officer on site warned her that the children's lungs wouldn't be able to handle adult doses and they would suffocate. The feds murdered them, just as McVeigh would do to theirs.

Oh yah, all the media and governments reports about Waco? I've decided I don't believe them. In light of all the corruption we see from both today, you would have to be a fool to take them at their word.

Fen said...

* for civies - NBC Officer stands for Nuclear Biological Chemical.

He was the expert at the scene.

Jason said...

The Society for Creative Anachronism has always been lousy with chickenhawks and their enablers. They helped found it.

Brando said...

The answer to that is obvious, but they did their job and will be rewarded from various slush funds. The key is to keep several layers of insulation between the campaign and the "dark arts" operatives--"buffers" as they called them in Godfather Part II.

They learned from Nixon's mistakes.

bflat879 said...

Since we know hell is freezing over, because the Chicago Cubs are in the World Series, we can now assume that the NY Times and the remainder of our illustrious free press, will be making this front page news before the election.

grackle said...

I'm thinking: They did something bad before they were agents of the DNC, so why did the DNC hire them and what did they do?

That’s good thinking. Now … let’s all think a little bit further …

We know why the DNC hired them: to perform dirty tricks on the sly. There’s no real question there unless you are willfully ignoring the obvious.

What’s more interesting to me is who paid them before the DNC hired them. Who else has been using them in the past? Who paid for the freeway closing? Who paid for the Chicago Trump rally disruption?

Now an irrelevant rant: The polls are total bullshit, significant of nothing. I believe the much praised, much quoted Real Clear Politics National Average is unreliable and based at least partly on biased polls. Drudge links to this article on a recently hacked Podesta email:

http://tinyurl.com/j5r8ws4

Sample quotes: The email even includes a handy, 37-page guide with the following poll-rigging recommendations.

… one can easily "rig" a poll by over indexing to one group vs. another. As a quick example, the ABC / WaPo poll found that Hillary enjoys a 79-point advantage over Trump with black voters. Therefore, even a small "oversample" of black voters of 5% could swing the overall poll by 3 full points. Moreover, the pollsters don't provide data on the demographic mix of their polls which makes it impossible to "fact check" the bias...convenient.


It is as many of us have suspected all along. Oversampling advantageous demographic groups seem to be the main tactic in this particular email. All directed by Podesta. I wonder, is a “PollGate” in our future?

I first became suspicious when I noticed that without exception Democrats were oversampled in every poll I researched – never Republicans.

Back to the subject of the post: Jake Tapper is a talking head. All talking heads are cunts and need to get their pussies grabbed. Hard. And then ridiculed and disdained for the political whores they are. Mook is a slimeball and as such has a great future in Democrat politics.

#NeverDownBallot

Mac McConnell said...

Hillary has her brown shirts, no surprise, you can't spell Progressive without SS.

tim in vermont said...

Terry McAuliffe, an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton, gave nearly $500,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an official at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who later helped oversee the investigation into Mrs. Clinton's email use.

An example of the kind of shit nobody cares about. I always figure that the American idea of personal liberty was not going to withstand forever the unrelenting pressure of those who want power over others to increase their own wealth. But I was always hoping it would be after I died. Oh well.

My current plan is to give the Democrats 2K every cycle, and duck and cover, meanwhile, I will vote third party every election, because, when you are in a hole, you stop digging.

Phelps said...

Mook is slicing the loaf very, very thin with this line:

"when they were working for the DNC."

Why? Because the evidence shows that they were hired by the DNC after they did the dirty deeds, meaning, "go ahead and start the s---, and then we'll get you paid afterwards."

Writ Small said...

This is following the common scandal trajectory, which is denial or avoidance followed by justification. Think of the tax return issue where Trump started by falsely claiming he couldn't release them during an audit and switched to justifying paying no taxes by correctly pointing out that this was within the law.

We're at the first stage of this with the Clinton camp refusing to admit anything, but we should game it out and anticipate where the defense will go once undeniable proof is shown. I think the defense will be in two parts: One, they will say that the "inciters" were doing nothing more than using provocative and protected speech. That is, as with Trump and his tax returns, the agitators did nothing illegal. Two, they will claim that Trump committed the original sin of incitement by approvingly winking at his fan's violent tendencies. Said Trump famously, "knock the crap out of them . . . I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees." I imagine the Clinton team will be happy to have this conversation in the closing weeks of the campaign as it reflects poorly on both sides.

dda6ga dda6ga said...

mook is a mok

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Good for Jake Tapper--asking the question, at least.

How funny is it that for all the talk about Trump & his supporters being secret fascists or Nazis it turns out the Democrats are the ones funding violence & trying to stir up violent responses for political gain--and now they're on tape bragging about their success with their own mini-Reichstag fires!

It's funny, but not at all surprising to anyone paying attention. The question, though is: how much does this outrage & anger nice people like Professor Althouse and what do they do with & about that outrage? I strongly suspect the answer is: not very much and nothing. And that's for nice centrist people who actually follow politics closely enough to have heard this story--the Media isn't exactly pushing it so I doubt very much most nice centrists have heard anything about it at all! Those that do probably get the "in an edited tape from a discredited partisan source..." angle and that's about it.

MaxedOutMama said...

But of course, this all goes to show that Ann's recent post saying that the election of either Trump or Clinton would ensure a highly scrutinized president was not true. The Clinton apparatus extends right through the machinery of government, law enforcement, and the press. What's surprising is not that Tapper asked the question, but that every press institution ISN'T asking such questions.

If we elect Hillary Clinton, we will have gone a long way toward abrogating a government of laws. We will really be endorsing all the corruption, all the self-dealing, the near oligarchy that has formed in the country, and ALL THE MISUSE OF THE MACHINERY of law enforcement.

A few nights ago I dreamed that I was standing there as Ben Franklin told the anxious lady waiting outside the constitutional convention "A republic, Ma'am, if you can keep it." In the voting booth, I will be that lady in more modern dress, pulling the Trump lever in hopes of keeping that republic, and hoping that the result will be a greater tendency to preserve "a government of laws, not men".

Hillary's entire campaign has really been focused on convincing people that we need a government of men rather than laws. In fact, that has become the progressive democratic manifesto.

That's why I am voting for Trump. For me, it is an easy choice. Not the choice I would have preferred to have, but given the broadly cohesive and coherent evidence of the Dem candidate's personal corruption and already instituted machinery that is able to subvert normal governmental checks and balances, Trump is infinitely the better choice.

CWJ said...

Writ Small wrote -

"Think of the tax return issue where Trump started by falsely claiming he couldn't release them during an audit and switched to justifying paying no taxes by correctly pointing out that this was within the law."

I'm sorry to comment so late, but I don't understand this. "Scandal trajectory?" Trump didn't eventually release his returns. One part of one year was leaked by someone else and given to the press. Trump's opinion on whether or not to release his returns had nothing to do with how this 20 year old partial return came to light. Indeed, I question whether he was even referring to anything that old. As for the latter half of the sentence, how was that a "switch?" Releasing yes or no, and explaining the contents, are separate issues requiring separate responses. I don't see how that's a switch. Explaining your return is not the same as "justifying" your return. This was not just "within" the law, but was in accordance with the law. The sentence strains to make a point, but the evidence doesn't seem to support it.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Officially visiting the White House 350 times in 7.25 years = an avg of 48 visits/yr, or 4/mo, or 1/wk. He visited with President Obama himself 47 times, or once every other month.

If a person visits the White House on average once per week, isn't that fact worth mentioning when there's a story about that person saying or doing something very wrong? Like...I get that there's a Media bubble of protection around all Democrats and Obama in particular, but how does that info not work its way into a story or two in a mainstream source, man?

Writ Small said...

@CWJ - In my original conception of the comment, I was going to use a Clinton scandal as an example (Lewinsky, Benghazi, email server, etc.). Their scandal management approach is typically done in three or four stages: 1) Denial, 2) Lawyerly rationalization, 3) Optionally, a claim of "taking responsibility" without actually doing anything, and 4) A declaration of it being "old news." Stages two, three, and four only become necessary if reporters continue to ask questions.

My point was this issue is unlikely to get past stage two because there is no illegality in what was done and Trump's hands are far from clean. I tried to show that Trump has used a similar approach in dealing with issues of his own, such as his tax return, but I agree that was never a "scandal," and so my point did get muddled up. Oh well. They can't all be winners.

richardsson said...

Althouse wrote:
Again, I'm thinking: They did something bad before they were agents of the DNC, so why did the DNC hire them and what did they do?


Creamer was a convicted felon who served time in prison before all of this. Everyone whose business was to know that knew that. He is married to a Congresswoman. No wonder the Democrats are pushing laws that restore voting rights to felons. They are felons themselves.

rcommal said...

..threw Tapper under my mini-bus 3 or 4 years ago one night on Twitter when he churlishly responded to a tweet of mine.

Churlish is what bothers you? Oh, sweet, OMG + etc.

--

I suspect that you're just playin' with me, @chickelit, which is such a shame, because, given the choice, I so would stand by you, have your back and so much more than "and then some."

That sort of thing has been so shed off, from what I'm seeing, that there's no point in bothering, trying, working hard, & etc., at all.

Well, bless your heart and then some.

--

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpQFFLBMEPI

--



Michael The Magnificent said...

We are either going to legitimize violence as a political tool, or we aren't.

And if we are, then God help you when the purge begin.

rcommal said...

All of that said, there's so much truth of it, the stuff that I and my husband have done.

As if all the while that way too many of you have not just been whining, not just crying, not just excusing your own weakness, but also just insisting that being "all in for doing stuff" is, somehow, just like "actually doing stuff."

--

It ain't. Full stop.

rcommal said...

We are either going to legitimize violence as a political tool, or we aren't.

Under no circumstances, in these times of so many circumstances, do I or will I willingly legitimize violence as a political tool. So, count me as the sort who, given my druthers (that is to emphasize, among the unwillng), are among the "we aren't."

-----


That said, make no mistake about it ...

rcommal said...

... we are exceptionally well equipped to defend ourselves. Don't fool yourselves into thinking otherwise, O SO aggressive ones. I kid you not.

Pay attention.

Phelps said...

Under no circumstances, in these times of so many circumstances, do I or will I willingly legitimize violence as a political tool.

I'm sure that will be a nice moral support when your rally is being broken up by liberal fascists bashing in heads.

rcommal said...

Phelps, you are clueless and primarily because, unlike us, you haven't been paying attention for a couple of decades or so, at least.

rcommal said...

Phelps: You are being silly. Therefore, I will not pay attention to you.

Phelps said...

Right, the guy with the blog going back to Aug 2002 hasn't "been paying attention for a couple of decades or so, at least."