Monica Crowley's conspiracy theory is seeming more and more plausible, no?
[Hillary] tried to get her dirty tricks consigliere, Sidney Blumenthal, a top position in the State Department, which Mr. Obama pointedly denied. So she hired him anyway through the Clinton Foundation. Through Mr. Blumenthal, she was fed all kinds of intelligence on global hotpots such as Libya, much of it inaccurate, as she circumvented traditional government communication chains via her private email server.
She didn't trust Obama, the theory goes, and Obama didn't trust her.
In a recently disclosed email, Mrs. Clinton complained that she heard “on the radio” that there was a “Cabinet meeting” that morning and wondered if she could attend. The secretary of state — fourth in line to the presidency — was frozen out, so she set up her own fiefdom.
Obama wants someone he can trust in charge of preserving his legacy, and that would be Joe Biden, Crowley says.
So here’s the likely plan: Mr. Biden will announce that he is running for president (the reported dying wish of his late son, Beau). After a respectable amount of time, Mr. Obama will announce that while he admires all of the Democratic candidates, Mr. Biden has earned his particular loyalty. Following his presidential endorsement, Mr. Obama will then support Mr. Biden with the full weight of the White House, including the sophisticated technical infrastructure his campaigns used to win in 2008 and 2012. For years, Mrs. Clinton has begged Mr. Obama to turn it over to her, and he refused. He’s been saving it for someone else. Mr. Obama will also use his considerable influence with black and Latino voters to support Mr. Biden, which may be enough to help him significantly....
Crowley connects her theory to the recent, weird New York Times story that "two inspectors general from [Obama's] administration recommended that the Justice Department open a 'criminal' inquiry into [Hillary's] handling of classified material." There's reason to think that the leak came from "Mr. Obama’s own consigliere, Valerie Jarrett."
The Times walked back some of the details, but the damage was done. If Mr. Obama did not want a DOJ criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton to go forward, he would not have let it go this far. He wants the investigation, wants her nailed, wants her out. And he’s doing it, slowly, steadily.
So says Monica Crowley, who should not be confused with that other Crowley, Candy Crowley, the woman who threw the last election (
according to another conspiracy theory).
पोस्ट्स
८५ टिप्पण्या:
Biden is a likely candidate, but Hillary has the money.
Biden lost the debate he had with Palin. Big time. What will he do against Cruz, or Walker, or Bush? Lose even more?
No, Hillary is in it to win it. She will.
This election is her legacy, which is more important than Obama's legacy, because without this win she goes down in history solely as the enabler of a serial adulterer who used her to protect him throughout his (successful) political life, and she will be remembered for nothing else. God help us all.
Well, Biden has been in the Imperial City for more than 40 years so his nomination would set up an even more epic contest for the voters between the Beltway status quo vs. an outsider [assuming the Repubs don't nominate a Senator]. I see that as an easy victory for the Repubs by just asking the voters "are you happy with how the fed govt works i.e VA, IRS, OPM data breach, Fast & Furious, Iraq and Afghan wars, deficit, open borders fiasco, etc etc].
And btw Biden is a certified imbecile [I know you left that out since you still have a fondness for all things from Delaware].
Hillary Clinton is taking Hillary Clinton out. No help needed.
The fact that Obama didn't summarily fire the inspectors general, as he did early on in his presidency when they made trouble for his political allies, says a lot.
I like the repeated use of the word consigliere in this article.
tim in vermont- in another universe, all the issues Obama has had with inspectors general would be a "firing the US Attorneys"-level scandal.
Don't underestimate ol' Joe. He's a gaffe prone nitwit but he has an enviable likeability.
Remember the debate with Paul Ryan? He was being a rude, overbearing jackass, snorting and guffawing over Ryan. Ryan was calmly talking and making strong arguments while Biden was being a complete boob. And yet a depressing number of people still thought Joe won.
Poor Joe Wilson. He was angling for the Sid Blumenthal position when he went to Niger for Valerie. I wonder if he ended up getting any Hillary money while she was Secretary of State.
Whether this is true or not, it guarantees to make for interesting photo-ops in future when all the ex-presidents are gathered for some event or other, like funerals or national disasters. Or maybe both. Imagine six living ex-presidents gathered to look over the smoking ruins of New York from an Iranian bomb, and W turns to Obama and says "you wouldn't listen, would you?" And Bill Clinton sidles over and says "you shoulda let Hillary win instead of pushing Slow Joe." And Jimmah says "it's because we're an apartheid country."
"Biden is a likely candidate, but Hillary has the money... No, Hillary is in it to win it. She will."
If having the money is a lock, then Jeb will win.
I mean... Trump will win!
And he'll win on his own money, so at least we have that.
Biden lost the debate he had with Palin.
And the debate against that other guy (I don't remember his name) in 2012. It looked like he borrowed a little choom from his boss.
in another universe, all the issues Obama has had with inspectors general would be a "firing the US Attorneys"-level scandal.
Except that US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. Inspector Generals do not. So in another universe, their should have been a scandal for firing the inspector generals and none for replacing the US Attorneys, in a universe where the law mattered to people.
Which will make Obama more rich and influential in his post presidency -- Mrs. Clinton or anybody but Mrs. Clinton.
That is all you need to know.
Biden was born in 1942. He will be 73 this fall and would enter the White House at age 74.
He and Hillary should both appeal to the youthful voters. And both Hillary and Biden have a documented ability to break into Ebonics, so they both are attractive to black voters.
Low information voters are the key demographic in 2016, so Biden should have a real edge in the race, with Hillary in a close second place.
In a head to head match, however, Joe loses the deciding "peeing position" vote.
D'oh! Inspectors general... It's my corpseman moment.
Biden is likable despite (because of?) his gaffes. Hillary is really not likable enough. I never appreciated Biden's skills until I listened to him deliver the Yale Class Day speech in May 2015.. He was real. Someone worth listening too. Not a grifter.
It is "Rs BI" or "RBIs"?
exactly, Tim in Vermont.
I'd love to know what goes on behind the scenes- what it takes to flip the switch and turn the gears of the Official Political Scandal Machine.
I mean... Trump will win!
Trump and Sanders are the two going against the grain of the money, because Sanders can't raise it and Trump does not need it. I was listening to Sanders on the way back home from the beach last night. He never once mentioned Obama but went after the same culprits, Wall Street, a few billionaires hoarding the countries wealth, income inequality, social injustice against Blacks blah blah. Hillary could adopt the same tone and rhetoric without mentioning Obama and his failed policies but the hypocrisy will be evident and at least she is intellectually honest to not totally embrace it (Obama did embrace it by lying and hoodwinking all the while serving his big money donors).
The problem with this theory is that Biden was selected by Obama as life insurance policy. Theory being Biden is so dumb that no one would kill Obama since Biden would then become president. So Obama is now going to campaign for his life insurance policy?The dumbest electable politician in America in 2008? And who will Biden find to be his Biden? A better theory is Obama doesn't want a Democratic presidential win next year. He probably wants a squishy Republican who won't undo anything he has done and will get 100% of the blame for the disastrous economy in the next term when the Fed's steroids finally stop working. If a Democrat gets elected then when the shit hits the fan the Democrats won't be able to blame Bush or the Republicans for the disaster. The disaster will be Obama's legacy and that is what Obama hopes to avoid. The Democrats will campaign hard for Congress and for state and local elections but the presidency its starting look like a throwaway for them.
Is it a "conspiracy theory" to say Candy Crowley threw the last election?
Isn't it more of a conclusion from observation?
I would love to think this is true, but fear it is more wishful thinking than anything. Only because Biden waited until this late to make his intentions known--you need a lot of time to raise serious money to go after the Clintons.
If he didn't trust Hillary, why put her at State and allow her to run her own fiefdom... and mischief.
.
Candy didn't throw the election, but she sure as hell interfered in the debate.
"Is it a "conspiracy theory" to say Candy Crowley threw the last election?"
I'd only disagree because I don't think her grossly unprofessional "moderating" was decisive in that race. But you can be sure no Republican (and maybe many Democrats) will never let her moderate a debate again after that stunt.
tim in vermont said...
It is "Rs BI" or "RBIs"?
Neither. He flied out.
Biden should just reuse Obama's speeches. Anybody likely to vote for him either has no problems with plagiarism or has no idea what Obama ever said in the first place.
"If he didn't trust Hillary, why put her at State and allow her to run her own fiefdom... and mischief."
A couple reasons--first, as a cabinet officer, she'd be prohibited from politicking and fundraising (though clearly she and her husband found a way to run around that law). Second, it'd mute her ability to criticize or even run in a primary against Obama leading up to 2012, as she wouldn't want voters to see her as disloyal to an administration she serves--something she could have done with ease as a Senator. But thirdly, making her serve him as SoS puts her in a necessarily subordinate role and out of his hair during his term.
As for damage she can do as Secretary, these days foreign policy is really directed by the president and the Secretary can only influence it to the extent that the president respects her advice. This is why he agreed to bomb Libya at her suggestion, and after that got messed up he did not take her advice on bombing Syria when that option came up.
She didn't trust Obama, the theory goes, and Obama didn't trust her.
For a change, they're both right!
I've been saying that there was an anti-Hilary intra-party conspiracy for months.
Its been obvious that the scandal items were coming from insiders in high positions and were being pushed to the Democratic-party press.
This certainly isn't difficult to figure out.
@buwaya
Right.
Obama's antipathy for Hillary has given the press permission to go negative on her and they have.
Run Joe Run!
He's a doofus but he's not a republican so he's got a good shot.
"And yet a depressing number of people still thought Joe won."
I think this was a plan to make Ryan look young and inexperienced. He was too sincere and earnest looking when he should have just turned to Joe and said, "Joe, are you having a seizure ?" Reagan would have done that.
I do agree with the theory that the Dims would not mind a GOP president when the world comes crashing down next term. Look how well it worked for Clinton.
Speaking of Sanders, I finally saw the clip of Chris Matthews (!) asking Debbie Wasserman-Schultz what the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist was. "We are the big tent party!"
"And he'll win on his own money, so at least we have that."
Not sure: does he want to be President more than keep his money? Half a billion isn't Trump change.
Slow Joe vs Hillary! would be fun: Mr. Plagiarist vs. Mrs. Phony. Critical question in '16: how low can low info voters go?
I'm sure O wants to stop Hill, but he's also in a bind, because Joe is slow and old, and O blocked other viable candidates.
Warren would still be viable, but would steal O's Prog thunder -- can't have that.
Its not just that the press are being permitted to "go negative".
They are being fed with news items that could only come from internal government sources, on a controlled schedule. Moreover each thing seems to be a thread that seems to be leading to more information - there are a pile of un-followed clues just lying there. That cant be followed without yet more inside information, or, thinking conspiratorially, the press involved is a fully cooperating part of the conspiracy.
This is not an outlandish bit of paranoia, I think. The press ownership being an insider clique and interlocking relationships with the Obama political mafia are well known.
If the thing was just a matter of unleashing the press hounds, each of these things would have been followed up and entirely exposed, months ago.
No, this thing is centrally directed and controlled.
At the end of the day its all about who will be on the Twenty Dollar Bill.
"If he didn't trust Hillary, why put her at State and allow her to run her own fiefdom... and mischief."
-- Friends close, enemies closer.
"If he didn't trust Hillary, why put her at State and allow her to run her own fiefdom... and mischief."
The way I recall it, when she first became SoS, she basically faded into the background and Obama did all the heavy lifting. He was the de facto SoS. She traveled through Africa and talked about women's issues mostly. It was only later that he let her out of that box. And she rewarded him by fucking up Libya. His initial instincts were probably correct.
I finally saw the clip of Chris Matthews (!) asking Debbie Wasserman-Schultz what the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist was. "We are the big tent party!"
Even worse, that is the second time she was asked that question within a week, and her answer didn't get any better.
FWIW, I really don't think that Obama is motivated by money too much. Too be sure, he did favors as a Senator for that hospital his wife worked at, and they gave her a huge raise, and he benefited from a real estate deal that stunk of corruption, but I don't think he is ultimately as venal as Hillary is.
Roy Jacobsen said...
Speaking of Sanders, I finally saw the clip of Chris Matthews (!) asking Debbie Wasserman-Schultz what the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist was. "We are the big tent party!"
8/3/15, 9:47 AM
We have all three kinds of leftist politics: communists, socialists and fascists.
I liked Bernie's dismissal of Biden as reported on the local Vermont news. "He's the establishment..."
LOL
Hillary's scandals -- old, recent, and future -- will soon catch up to her. She won't get the nomination even if Biden doesn't run.
I love how the same people who scoffed at me a year ago when I suggested this are now running around talking about it.
The Obamas hate the Clintons. It's better for Obama's legacy if a Republican wins the WH.
Trump vs. Biden. I can hardly wait to see that debate. From Australia or Ireland or really, anywhere.
" It's better for Obama's legacy if a Republican wins the WH."
If hat were to happen, a lot of Obama admin people will end up in jail. I do think Obama might begin to suspect that the economic chickens are going to come home to roost. I do think he is clueless about the Iran deal.
Also, Obama doesn't care about money other than enough to continue his billionaire lifestyle.
If hat were to happen, a lot of Obama admin people will end up in jail. I do think Obama might begin to suspect that the economic chickens are going to come home to roost. I do think he is clueless about the Iran deal.
Not likely that anyone would go to jail. The GOP would whine about how divisive that is and how they're "moving on with the business of governing" or some such crap.
With a Republican in the WH, Obama can spend four years on the lecture and talk-show circuit. If things go south, he'll claim it's because his successor's policies undid all the good that the Obama administration accomplished, while if things improved it was because of Obama's policies and things would have improved sooner if not for those mean old nasty Republicans.
There is an old adage in the business world that you don't let a star employee pick his/her successor (especially a star with ego issues) as he/she will tend to pick someone who'll fail and make the departed one look better.
I could see Obama wanting Biden to be his successor--Biden's long been loyal to Obama, and was friendly to him in the 2008 primaries (his "clean, articulate" comment was intended and likely taken as a compliment). He'd probably prefer a Democrat to succeed him--largely for policy reasons, but also because it would look like vindication--a "third term" sort of thing. But he likely sees benefits to a Republican succeeding him. The odds of there not being a recession in the next 4-8 years are slim--we normally get them at least once a decade--and if it happens on a Republican watch it furthers the leftist fantasy that the Dems fix economies and GOPers break them. Plus, he'd be more free to criticize his successor if it's a Republican.
Being succeeded by Hillary would be worst of all worlds. Rather than a "third term" it might instead look like Democrats had buyer's remorse from 2008, and he's long had bad blood with that awful family (and I can sympathize with Obama here--they felt entitled and felt he took it from them, and never respected or acknowledged him as president). There's little chance she'd keep his signature policies going in foreign affairs (on which they long disagreed) or key domestic policies (she's owned by Wall Street more than Obama is). There's no doubt the Clintons would blame Obama for any problems they inherit, and it might carry more weight among Dems than if a GOPer said the same thing.
I hope he does torpedo her candidacy. It'd be well deserved and the best thing for this country. I'd have to rate Obama a bit higher in esteem if this panned out.
Hillary's chickens will never "come home to roost" Here is a picture of one of them she stashed on Mars.
https://youtu.be/7mOxQghay9w
Come on in Joe - you are head and shoulders above the Clintons...
the term "consigliere" seems especially appropriate. Does Biden have one?
A hit piece on Hillary Clinton in ... the reliably Liberal Atlantic Magazine? Et tu, Atlantic?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/hillary-clinton-email-transparency-secretary-state/386641/
Is it a "conspiracy theory" to say Candy Crowley threw the last election?
Isn't it more of a conclusion from observation?
She didn't throw the election?
She sure as shit threw that debate.
If I ever see her moderating a debate, I will hunt down Reibus for a righteous bitch slapping.
Not likely that anyone would go to jail. The GOP would whine about how divisive that is and how they're "moving on with the business of governing" or some such crap.
The GOP would be wise to declassify EVERYTHING. Every piece of paper on Obamacare gets declassified. The entire Iran deal declassified. Only things not declassified are things that might hurt our actual allies --- but Obama sucking up to the mullahs of Iran or the Castros? Yeah, declassify that shit, too.
Two vile scorpions in a bottle--doing what comes naturally.
This is a shorter version of Ed Klein's book, Blood Feud. The theme is well presented that the Obamas hate the Clintons and that goes for Bill as well as Hillary.
It is new to see the campaign for Biden imitating Trumps theme that their man is an authentic unfiltered speaker of truth.
"A hit piece on Hillary Clinton in ... the reliably Liberal Atlantic Magazine? Et tu, Atlantic?"
I can see it--this is their last chance to get out the buyer's remorse--by next year it will likely be too late to find a new candidate. And from a leftist's perspective, Biden isn't a bad pick--he's widely liked among Democrats, has a good chance of using the Obama machine, and he's got an "aw shucks" corny uncle persona that can win over moderates. He also doesn't fire up the venom among rightists that Hillary does.
Their other choices aren't great--Sanders excites the far left, but he'd leave a lot of moderates cold, and he doesn't strike me as as good a retail politician as Biden (remember, Biden ran in two primary seasons and twice successfully on a national ticket, while this is Sanders' first go round).
"She didn't throw the election?
She sure as shit threw that debate."
No one should ever allow her to moderate after that. Hell, I wouldn't blame the GOP if they refused to let CNN cover their debates after that (though I've criticized the Dems for blackballing Fox News for similar reasons).
Still, Romney was going into that election hobbled and against headwinds. I'd be a lot more pissed if I thought a better performance in that debate would have pushed him over the top.
"There is no honor among thieves."
"When thieves fall out, the honest man comes into his own."
(but not necessarily; there has to be an honest manm, and he has to try.)
If Mr. Obama did not want a DOJ criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton to go forward, he would not have let it go this far.
God damn, is that not the most depressing thing you've read about the state of our Government? I mean, I have no doubt it's true! It's not even worth editorializing about, or protesting, or marching in the streets over, though, everyone just understands that's how it is now. The former SecState almost certainly committed wrongful acts and may have committed crimes. Everyone takes it as given, though, that unless the current President wants that to be investigated, it won't be--nevermind prosecuted! Ho-hum.
"though I've criticized the Dems for blackballing Fox News for similar reasons)."
-- As far as I know, Fox News has never been as terrible in Democrat debates as the other places have been to Republicans. Remember the year that they got questions from "concerned Republican primary voters" who were, almost to a person, members of Democrat campaigns?
"As far as I know, Fox News has never been as terrible in Democrat debates as the other places have been to Republicans."
They weren't--but the Democratic candidates in 2008 agreed among themselves to boycott Fox News (I'm not sure of the extent to which they meant to do this--just for the campaign? Refuse questions from their reporters? Or just not let them host a debate?) and I thought this was a terrible precedent, that would further partisanize media groups. Though that seems to be the direction we're going in.
That was 2008, wasn't it?
Well, I feel old now.
It's a sign of America's improving race relations that Hillary wants so badly to live in a house previously occupied by black people.
"If things go south, he'll claim it's because his successor's policies undid all the good that the Obama administration accomplished, while if things improved it was because of Obama's policies and things would have improved sooner if not for those mean old nasty Republicans."
I agree. Clinton did that and is still loved by Democrats, especially the feminists, some of whom he fucked or who gave him blowjobs like Margaret Carlson
I don't think Margaret Carlson is even rumored to have done anything with Clinton.
I doubt there is a formal conspiracy plan, but of course Biden plans to run and of course Obama would much prefer Biden to Hillary. So, without leaving fingerprints, he will look for opportunity to help Biden, as long as he thinks Biden has as good a chance or better than Hillary of being elected president - which is probably true today and will only be more true as time moves on. The good news is that neither one has more than about a 25% chance of being elected.
All of this assumes Obama wants a Democrat to win and succeed him.
"I don't think Margaret Carlson is even rumored to have done anything with Clinton."
There was a story back in the 90s around the time of the famous event that Monica was going into the West Wing and was asked to wait as Clinton had a guest on the Oval Office. She was enraged when she heard it was Carlson.
"I'd be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal."
Those were the enlightening words uttered by former Time contributor and White House correspondent Nina Burleigh in an interview in Mirabella magazine, as reported by Howard Kurtz in a Washington Post Article. However, it was learned on 07/16/98 that her comment was a little different from that. Nina Burleigh has now filled in what word she really used in the spot the Post bracketed and revealed her next sentence to Kurtz, that he did not share with readers.
Nina Loves Clinton Her full quote: "I would be happy to give him a blowjob just to thank him for keeping abortion legal. I think American women should be lining up with their presidential kneepads on to show their gratitude for keeping the theocracy off our backs."
Maybe it was Burleigh but I heard Carlson was another volunteer. She certainly adoring, And dismissive of Hillary.
This may be all true about Biden, but keep your eyes on John Kerry too
Yes, Kerry would jump at the slightest opportunity and would not mind knifing anyone in the back in the process. So, Biden essentially has to make his move before Kerry has a chance to do so.
By the way, in my continuing effort to protect the reputation of Margaret Carlson (who among liberal journalists, is probably closer to honest than most), it was Eleanor Mondale who likely was doing Clinton while Lewinsky was waiting outside the office to do him. Just part of the complicated duties of a president. You do have to recognize that Bill and Hillary have no shame.
" it was Eleanor Mondale who likely was doing Clinton while Lewinsky was waiting outside the office to do him."
Egad ! I believe you are correct.
Hard to keep these round heeled feminists straight,
Mr. Biden will announce that he is running for president (the reported dying wish of his late son, Beau).
Biden rationalized his first wife's and daughter's deaths as at the hands of a drunk truck driver driving an unsafe big rig -- the Delaware State Patrol cleared the driver (who has since died and can't defend himself) and found the truck to have been to code -- so why not fabulize about his late son (who survived the crash that killed his wife and daughter) to give his pending candidacy some resonance?
Machine gun bacon is easy.
But machine gun pancakes now....when he can do that, I'll know he's Presidential material.
And then there's this news item:
"Hillary Clinton’s suburban hometown of Chappaqua, New York has just become ground zero in the Obama administration’s efforts to nullify local control over America’s housing. Obama’s Justice Department has fired a powerful warning shot at Westchester County, New York, where the administration is conducting a dry run of its new Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) regulation.
At issue is whether Westchester’s obligation to “affirmatively further fair housing” compels county officials to crush local opposition to a low-income housing development in downtown Chappaqua."
Yeah, it struck me also as against the news grain of Clinton ascendant. I assume though that it wasn't a conspiracy just that at a certain point of her candidacy taking on water, the Democratic establishment is more comfortable with another battleship slipping into the water. Looking not above the law is a nice counterspin as well.
They are all POS. Obama, Hillary, Biden, and Kerry.
If ever there was a poorer bunch of cheap politicians....
The GOP would be wise to declassify EVERYTHING. Every piece of paper on Obamacare gets declassified. The entire Iran deal declassified. Only things not declassified are things that might hurt our actual allies --- but Obama sucking up to the mullahs of Iran or the Castros? Yeah, declassify that shit, too.
I'm in.
How do we get this movement started?
"At issue is whether Westchester’s obligation to “affirmatively further fair housing” compels county officials to crush local opposition to a low-income housing development in downtown Chappaqua.""
I used to live in the next town over and I recall there was controversy over "low income housing" to be built, and "low income" meant "under $50K" (in early '90s money, which was hardly "poor" at the time--anywhere except Chappaqua). If the Obama administration does anything significant in terms of forcing actual low income housing into that area, then I'm glad we moved away before housing values could drop.
You want to make housing more affordable? Then make the prospect of building more housing in general more profitable.
"When you strike at a king, you must kill him." The Clinton's power comes from one main source; Hillary might be the next president. If she fails this time, they will have the same power and influence as a certain peanut farmer.
If Obama overtly wages war on Hillary and she ends up in the presidency, Obama will pay a price. His best bet is to appear neutral but try a bit to have Biden win. Biden would cement the Obama legacy better than HRC and he doesn't hold any grudge against Obama.
"If Obama overtly wages war on Hillary and she ends up in the presidency, Obama will pay a price."
I don't doubt they would do anything vindictive against him (though he's already on their nasty list for having the effrontry of denying Queen Hill her rightful entitlement back in 2008), but what price can they really make him pay that he wouldn't be paying anyway? She'll trash him and blame him when she takes office, but he'll be retired by that point and making money on the speaking circuit. And I suspect he has more loyalty among Democrats than the Clintons do.
He needs to strike at her, and hard. Clintons in power is dangerous for all.
Dude, she'll kill him. Plane crash, choke on a pretzel, whatever.
Did my post get lost where I said that if Hillary got elected she would probably have Obama killed?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा