We are in the third act of an epic morality play, and the Bidens and their ally Toobin stand exposed as corrupt, sexually perverse people.
Starting with the 2016 election, Scott Adams said that Donald Trump is the ultimate showman, and that he understands how to create a narrative. Adams is correct and I knew that, in 2020, it was always going to be Trump who controlled the October surprise. After all, since they subjected Trump to a daily colonoscopy for the last four years, the Democrats have no arrows left in their quiver.
Even the Wuhan virus is proving to be a failure when it comes to destroying Trump. The economy is rebounding; voters understand that China, not Trump, is to blame; Americans have been repulsed by the Democrats’ embrace of covid despotism, and Trump’s own bout with the virus shows that we’re coming to the end of the pandemic.
Additionally, as Americans watch Europe again collapse under the weight of the virus, despite ostensibly doing everything right compared to Trump’s doing everything wrong, they’re realizing that, in fact, Trump didn’t do anything wrong terribly wrong. He responded swiftly to events based on the best information available. No matter how one approaches the Wuhan virus, some people (sadly) will die.
When it came to whichever Democrat primary candidate became the Democrat presidential candidate, I always assumed that Trump would be able to pull a rabbit out of his hat. I also assumed, once Biden was the anointed one, that there would be lots of rabbits. When I envisioned those rabbits, though, I imagined that they would have Russian accents.
Thus, I had faith that, despite the Democrats using the Wuhan virus to slow down the Durham investigation, there would still be red meat regarding Biden’s involvement in the Russia hoax. Even when I learned that Durham would say nothing before the election, I told myself, “That’s okay. He probably can’t get a D.C. Grand Jury to indict anyone. And if he can get a D.C. Grand Jury to indict, it’ll be a year, at least, before there’s a trial. And in that year, all that the media will show are statements from the defendants’ attorneys saying that they’re innocent. I’m sure that Trump’s plan is to put the documents before the American people and let them make up their minds.”
What I hadn’t seen coming down the pike was Hunter Biden’s computer. Indeed, how could anyone have imagined that Hunter Biden would drunkenly abandon his computer at a little repair store; that the owner, after taking legal possession, would investigate the contents; that Deep State agencies would rebuff the owner’s efforts to turn over the contents to the government; that the FBI, having ignored evidence of Joe Biden’s corruption, would eventually send one of its child sexual exploitation experts to check things out; or that The New York Post, Rudy Giuliani, and Steve Bannon, would end up being the ones taking the story public.
And even if I had been able to imagine all of that, I would not have been able to imagine that the Biden camp would be unable to refute the hard drive’s contents; that Hunter Biden’s former partner, rotting in prison, would turn over his entire email account to Peter Schweizer; or that the Ukrainian government would have seized a computer from a Ukrainian bad guy with corroborating emails.
The only thing I knew would happen was that, the moment something bad about Biden emerged, the media and the Democrat party (but I repeat myself), would instantly blame “Russian disinformation.”
Frankly, Hunter Biden’s hard drive has been the most amazing denouement possible to the drama of the first term of the Trump presidency. I’m hoping that, during the debate, no matter what question the biased “mediator” asks Trump, he begins his answer by turning to Biden and asking him something about the evidence on the hard drive, whether it’s about Ukraine, China, or whether Biden knew about his son’s sexual activities with little girls (assuming that kind of stuff is indeed on the computer). And the follow up is that Biden, if he knew about all this stuff, also understood that this knowledge meant he was ripe for blackmail by China, Ukraine, Russia, and God alone knows what other bad actors in the world.
Indeed, if he’s feeling frisky, perhaps Trump can even ask Biden if Hunter got his taste for little girls from watching his Daddy. Then, and only then, should Trump answer the question asked of him.
As is so often the case, I can’t think of a better analysis of what’s going on than Tucker Carlson’s opening monologue:
And while we’re on the subject of the media acting as Joe Biden’s praetorian guard, USA Today, which publishes a weekly column from Glenn Reynolds, refused to publish this week’s column. Please go to Instapundit and read what USA Today censored.
All of the above news about Biden is excellent (although the censorship is evil). But there’s news today that’s truly delightful, that’s the icing on the cake and the gilding on the lily. That news is that Jeffrey Toobin exposed himself during a Zoom meeting with staff from The New Yorker.
Why is this so lovely? Because Toobin is a bad man. He’s a bad man because he puts bad ideas out there and has done so since he sparked the second coming of modern American racism by writing in The New Yorker about the “race card” regarding O.J. Simpson’s trial. I truly believe that, had Toobin not written the article, the race issue might have come up as a defense, but it would never have overtaken the national consciousness as it did.
Toobin is also a bad man because he’s an intellectually dishonest man. He writes about the law like a sleazy lawyer, pouring misinformation and misunderstandings into credulous readers’ brains.
Toobin is a bad man because, while he was married, he had an affair with a colleague’s much younger daughter, impregnated her, and tried to force her to have an abortion. That is what a moral reprobate does.
Toobin is a bad man because, despite all his moral and intellectual failings, he believes he’s some sort of moral arbiter and, therefore, was one of the most hysterical anti-Trump critics over the past few years.
And that’s why it’s such a wonderful thing to see Toobin done in by his own sleazy badness.
This wonderful Seinfeld clip is perfectly appropriate to Toobin’s conduct:
(Hat tip: Instapundit, where you’ll find a whole bunch of other Toobin material.)
Incidentally, if you’re wondering why all of this is happening to Biden and those around him, there are two reasons. The first reason is that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Biden and his family have lived within a completely protected bubble for decades. They have no sense at all of limitations on their behavior.
The second reason things like this are getting exposed is because leftists are their own Gods. Even people like Joe, who pretend to be Catholic (never mind his support for abortion, gay marriage, transgenderism, and fondling little girls) don’t really believe in an all powerful moral arbiter. They are all their own gods. That’s why they think we puny mortals can control the entire earth’s climate, with no help from the sun. We can certainly pollute and destroy regions, but we are not gods. Once you jettison the moral God and create your own standards, you can expect more stories of depravity, debauchery, and corruption.
(If you’re wondering about why I said all three are sexually perverse, I don’t need to have the Biden hard drive to support this statement. Toobin proved it with the affair and with his Zoom moment. Biden is constantly fondling and sniffing little girls. And Hunter has a predilection for hookers, strippers, and widows. They are nasty, nasty men.)
A monster illustrated edition that reminds you who Trump is and who the people are who wish to destroy him, along with the usual silly stuff and beauty.
We start with wisdom about impeachment and reminders about why we support President Donald J. Trump. Please consider sharing the first two posters, for they articulate core American principles people should know.
Some forgotten footage of Trump being interviewed back in the 1980s. He’s always been a doer and someone who loves America:
And now back to Deep State people who wish to destroy Trump. In poster immediately below, by the way, that’s Eric Ciaramella with a whole bunch of very powerful Democrats.
And now to the ordinary stuff, the stuff not about Donald J. Trump, that reminds us why, no matter how you feel about Trump the man, you need to support Trump the President:
Reading the Ukraine transcript with an eye to the subtext and metadata, brings us close to determining who leaked to the friend-of-Biden whistleblower.
We’ve learned that the so-called “whistleblower” — in actuality, someone who merely relayed hearsay information — is a former Biden associate. However, we still don’t have much information about the identity of the person who leaked to the whistleblower information about the phone call between Presidents Trump and Zelenskyy.
I think I can fill that information vacuum by looking to the only clue we have: The whistleblower’s own description of the leaker. While the whistleblower doesn’t name s/he/it, the whistleblower does describe that person’s thought processes — and, as the novels/movies tell us about FBI profilers, if you understand the thought processes, you know the person. Here, according to the New York Times, is what the leaker was thinking (hyperlinks omitted, emphasis mine):
A White House official who listened to President Trump’s July phone call with Ukraine’s leader described it as “crazy,” “frightening” and “completely lacking in substance related to national security,” according to a memo written by the whistle-blower at the center of the Ukraine scandal, a C.I.A. officer who spoke to the White House official.
The official was “visibly shaken by what had transpired,” the C.I.A. officer wrote in his memo, one day after Mr. Trump pressured President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in a July 25 phone call to open investigations that would benefit him politically.
(As an aside, it shouldn’t really matter, but it does: The New York Times misspells President Zelenskyy’s name. Alternatively, the Times thinks it knows more about spelling President Zelenskyy’s name than Zelenskyy himself does on his official website.)
When uninitiated people read the transcript, they see only a friendly call between allies during the course of which President Trump makes a request without stated conditions that Ukraine look in Crowdstrike’s role in the 2016 election. Much later in the conversation, they see President Zelenskyy mention Rudy Giuliani, with Trump responding with a “by the way” request that Ukraine might want to examine Hunter Biden’s business dealings insofar as Joe Biden boasted about getting a prosecutor fired. This is a very shallow interpretation.
To the initiated, those who are not fooled by superficialities, that transcript is dripping with subtext, which is the type of thing that Deplorables are incapable of seeing or understanding.
Fortunately for the uninitiated Deplorables among us, I’ve carefully analyzed the first half of the conversation, up to and including the Biden stuff. I’m therefore pleased to announce that, thanks to that close sub-textual, I’ve got a good idea about the leaker’s identity. To help you understand the analysis and my conclusion, I’ve taken the official transcript and interlineated the missing subtext. Once you’ve read it, I know that you will fully appreciate what kind of person can be so exquisitely attuned to the nuances of a superficially banal conversation — and so triggered by those nuances:
The President: Congratulations on a great victory. We all watched from the United States and you did a terrific job. The way you came from behind, somebody who wasn’t given much of a chance, and you ended up winning easily. It’s a fantastic achievement. Congratulations. [Nice little country you got there. Shame if something happened to it.]
President Zelenskyy: You are absolutely right Mr. President. [May I kiss your ring, Don Trump?] We did win big and we worked hard for this. [Please don’t kill me.] We worked a lot but I would like to confess to you that I had an opportunity to learn from you. We used quite a few of your skills and knowledge and were able to use it as an example for our elections and yes it is true that these were unique elections. We were in a unique situation that we were able to achieve a unique success. [See? I’m just like you, so please don’t kill me.] I’m able to tell you the following; the first time, you called me to congratulate me when I won my presidential election, and the second time you are now calling me when my party won the parliamentary election. I think I should run more often so you can call me more often and we can talk over the phone more often. [I’m so frightened, I had to wear Depends for this call.]
The President: [[Sinister] laughter] That’s a very good idea. I think your country is very happy about that. [You know that my boys can take care of you with the push of a button, right?]
President Zelenskyy: Well yes, to tell you the truth, we are trying to work hard because we wanted to drain the swamp here in our country. We brought in many many new people. Not the old politicians, not the typical politicians, because we want to have a new format and a new type of government. You are a great teacher for us and in that. [I understand corruption as well as you do, Don Trump. Moreover, I just re-read The Art of The Deal, so I’m willing to talk if you assure me you won’t kill me.]
The President: Well it’s very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. [Remember who’s doing the nice favors for you, capisce?] Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it’s something that you should really ask them about. [Europe is weak. Very weak.] When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she doesn’t do anything. [Donna Merkel is a dirty rat.] A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it’s something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn’t say that it’s reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. [Some day, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me.]
President Zelenskyy: Yes you are absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1000% and I can tell you the following; I did talk to Angela Merkel and I did meet with her. I also met and talked with Macron and I told them that they are not doing quite as much as they need to be doing on the issues with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the sanctions. [I know he’s thinking why did I go to Donna Merkel? Why didn’t I go to Don Trump first?] They are not working as much as they should work for Ukraine. It turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than the European Union and I’m very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes. [I am ready to talk favors here.]
The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. [Well, my friend, are you ready to do me this service? I want you to use all your powers, and all your skills.] I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. [Either you get to the bottom in a way that pleases me, or you’ll find yourself sleeping with the fish. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible. [Mueller is a marked man. Don’t disappoint me as he did.]
President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine. [I hear you loud and clear, Don Trump. As it is ordered, so it shall be done.] For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. [My predecessors offended you. I won’t make that mistake.] I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly. That I can assure you. [You, Don Trump, are family. You have my loyalty. And your people are my people.]
The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. [Horse’s head in a bed unfair, if you know what I mean.] A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. [Giuliani is one of my made men. Capisce?] He was the mayor bf New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. [When my guy Rudy calls, you answer.] The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me. [I want that Biden guy gone, you understand? You do whatever you have to do to make that happen. And if it doesn’t . . . I don’t think I need to state specifics, but you will regret to your dying day — something that may come sooner than you think — having disrespected me about taking Biden out.]
We all know, of course, which people in this society possess the type of super-sensitive antennae that makes them instantly aware of and emotionally responsive to subtext that’s entirely at odds with the spoken words: Recent college grads! Only someone who’s been through an American college could be so alive to metadata and subtexts. With this information, the following is my best guess based on the available information.
Ladies and gentlemen and non-binary living beings, I present to you the probable leaker within the Trump White House:
Democrats, in media and politics, rely on the elusive Seinfeldian yada yada yada to sound truthful even as they are lying like crazy.
One of my favorite Seinfeld episodes was the yada yada yada episode. (Spoilers ahead.) George has started dating a woman who tells very abbreviated stories. She starts with the premise, says, “and yada yada yada,” and then jumps to the conclusion:
Marcy: You know, a friend of mine thought she got Legionnaire’s disease in the hot tub.
George: Really? What happened?
Marcy: Oh, yada yada yada, just some bad egg salad. I’ll be right back. (She gets up)
Jerry: I noticed she’s big on the phrase “yada yada.”
George: Is “yada yada” bad?
Jerry: No, “yada yada” is good. She’s very succinct.
George: She is succinct.
Jerry: Yeah, it’s like you’re dating USA Today.
Soon, all four members of the Seinfeld gang are yada yada yada-ing their way through conversation.
Of course, the plot twist is that Marcy’s been leaving out more than even the squirrely Seinfeld gang realized. Thus, when she said, “So I’m on 3rd Avenue, mindin’ my own business, and, yada yada yada, I get a free massage and a facial,” this was the whole story:
George: All right, enough! Enough! From now on, no more yada yada’s. Just give me the full story.
George: Tell me about the free facial.
Marcy: Okay, well, like I said I was on 3rd Avenue, and I stopped by a large department store.
George: Which one?
George: Very good. Go on.
Marcy: Oh, and I stole a Piaget watch.
George: What’s that?
Marcy: And then, I was on such a… high, that I went upstairs to the salon on the fifth floor, and got a massage and facial, and skipped out on the bill.
George himself was less than honest, tell Marcy about his engagement to Susan, but forgetting to say that she died from the glue on the super cheap envelopes George bought for their wedding invitations when he started getting cold feet about the whole thing:
George: Well, we were engaged to be married, uh, we bought the wedding invitations, and, uh, yada yada yada, I’m still single.
Marcy: So what’s she doing now?
Some details are just too important to be left out.
I was irresistibly reminded of that Seinfeld episode this morning when I listened to Derek Hunter’s podcast. He made the point that the power the media has is not in the telling of things, but in the things “it chooses to leaving on the cutting room floor.”
A perfect example arose apropos his guest, Jerome Hudson, who is the entertainment editor for Breitbart and who has written a bestselling book: 50 Things They Don’t Want You to Know. We know it’s a bestseller because the Amazon algorithm, which is honest, tells us so.
You wouldn’t have known about the book’s bestseller status, though, if you only read the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. Both of them ignored the book entirely when they compiled their bestseller lists. (Hudson and Hunter joke that the LA Times print edition simply started the list at number 2, so as to avoid naming Hudson’s book as number 1, but I couldn’t find evidence of this.)
Before the internet, the Democrats and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself), could get away with this yada yada yada approach to information. Even if someone came along after them and looked on the cutting room floor for all the things the Leftists left behind, there was no way to get that information to the public. Nowadays, though, the yada yada yada approach to news and political speech no longer works.
Just think of the way Adam Schiff’s role in the Ukraine hoax has been unspooling. It’s like a real life Seinfeld yada yada yada episode. First, Schiff said he knew nothing about the whistle blower.
Yada yada yada.
It turned out that the whistle blower had gone directly to Schiff’s office with his hearsay information.
Faced with this, Schiff said that he was sorry that his straightforward “no” was so ambiguous that people didn’t understand the real nuance behind it, which was that the guy/gal came to Schiff’s office looking for instruction about how to lodge a whistle blower report and was extremely “vague.” In other words, Schiff and his staff knew “nothing! nothing!” His “no” wasn’t a lie, it was just a nuanced way of saying I knew “almost nothing.”
Yada yada yada.
It turned out that Schiff knew enough that he was deeply concerned about the president’s major violation of election law and constitutionality, leading him to take the matter to the next level. Oh, and there was the fact that he tweeted out an amazingly prescient statement about the whistle blower’s claims weeks before the claims allegedly left the IG IC’s office.
Another example was the conclusion to the dreadlock hoax about the school at which Karen Pence teaches. The hoax was the fact that Amari Allen, a female sixth grader, claimed that three white boys held her down and cut away at her dreadlocks. It was, the media implied, an obviously racial and sexist assault. The media was all over the story in breathless detail.
The yada yada yada problem arose when Allen admitted the whole thing never happened (and to their credit, her family immediately apologized). Sharp-eyed people on the internet instantly noticed the yada yada yada in the media’s reporting about Allen’s recantation:
And so it goes, with every news story and statement from the Democrats containing more dot-dot-dot (…) or yada-yada-yada then even the Seinfeld writers could fit into a half hour show that’s all about the important things people leave out of their narratives.
In the legal world, when it comes to fraud, lies by omission are just as actionable as lies by commission. For the better part of a century, Democrat media outlets and politicians skated on their fraudulent narratives to the American people. The internet, though, is ending that, which is why the gatekeepers — Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, etc. — are cracking down harder and harder on free speech. They can’t afford for the cuttings on the floor to become the news.
When it comes to today’s Democrat establishment, always remember that what they don’t say is as important as, if not more important than, what they do say. Before you make up your mind about any story wait at least 24 hours for the new media, the open investigative media, to troll through the cutting room and give you all the facts. Otherwise, yada yada yada, you’re uninformed.
The story of the sweet beer guy and the doxxing reporter is a microcosm of Democrat behavior, plus racial — and racist — education madness in Seattle.
The first part of this post is about the way in which the Carson King and Aaron Calvin saga parallels the saga of Trump, the Democrats, the Russian Hoax, and the investigation into the origins of the hoax. The second part looks at education insanity in Seattle. I’ve done a podcast on the same topics, which is not identical to this post, but it’s close enough that, if you prefer reading, you won’t miss anything by not listening to the podcast.* And if you listened to the podcast, you’ll find in this post links to the things I mentioned in the podcast.
The Beer Guy, the nasty reporter, Trump, and the nasty Democrats. You’ve probably already heard this story, so I won’t go on at length about it. Carson King is a young man who, during ESPN game night, put up a sign asking people to buy him a beer and giving his Venmo account name. It was silly, audacious, and charming. People responded with cheerful vigor, eventually sending King $1.12 million. King promptly turned around and donated the money to a hospital in Iowa City, where it will be used primarily to help children with cancer. This is a nice guy.
Aaron Calvin is not a nice guy. He was a young reporter at the Des Moines Register. He thought it would be a good scoop to troll King’s twitter feed. After crawling back eight years, he found a tweet or two in which King quoted some movie or TV show in a way that is no longer considered politically correct. (Keep in mind that what’s acceptable changes on an almost daily basis now.) King gave the ritual apology.
Apropos these ritualistic apologies, I’m waiting for someone to say, “No, I won’t apologize. What I said or did 10 or 20 or 30 years ago was within the acceptable norms of the time at which I did or said it (including the norms for 16 year old boys at that time). I certainly wouldn’t do it now because values have changed (although it’s not clear whether for the better), but I will not apologize when I did nothing wrong.” Still, I totally understand that King, raised in cancel culture, felt that he had to apologize.
All of the above was the norm: Some ordinary person does something nice; some snarky, sleazy reporter doxes the person; and the person ritually apologizes.
Something different happened this time, though. While King bowed low, others fought on his behalf. They trolled Calvin’s social media and found him saying worse things (by today’s standards) than what King had said. Although the Des Moines Register refused to apologize to King, because being a media outlet means never having to say you’re sorry, it did fire Calvin.
At this point, Calvin could have said, “I’ve learned my lesson about doxxing and apologized.” He didn’t. Instead, he played the victim card!
Former Des Moines Register Reporter Aaron Calvin, the reporter who dug into Iowa viral charity hero Carson King’s tweets from when he was 16, now tells Buzzfeed: “This whole campaign was taken up by right-wing ideologues and largely driven by that force.” https://t.co/8eOns91XqQ
More Calvin on his racist tweets being dug up after he did the same to Carson King: “It was just a taste of what I assume that women and journalists of color suffer all the time, but the kind of locality and regional virality of the story made it so intense.”
Little Calvin, the narcissist, is going to have a lousy life, one in which he’s always the victim of other people being mean to him — and he’ll never understand that they are being mean to him because he was a vile pig to them. Or maybe he’ll mature and become the nice, decent person he can be if he puts aside this narcissistic mindset.
What fascinated me about the above story is that it is precisely the same story, except in microcosm, that’s been playing out nationally between Trump, on the one hand, and the Democrats in both Congress and the media, on the other hand.
Trump did a good thing — he convinced enough people that his values were in line with theirs that he ought to become president. These values were, up until about 20 years ago, completely mainstream American values. Trump is Carson King.
The Democrats were outraged that Trump won. They did everything they could to destroy him. The Democrats are Aaron Calvin.
Trump, however, did not do what King did, which was to apologize. Instead, he stood his ground.
Trump was shown to be innocent by the Democrats’ own anointed savoir, Robert Mueller. Now, Trump is doing what the third party warriors did on King’s behalf, which is revealing the bad motives behind the Democrats’ actions.
This means that he is approaching other countries and saying, “Please find out what role your country played in the 2016 meddling in the American election.”
Like Calvin, the Democrats are screaming their heads off that they’re the victims. It was only right that they should destroy Trump, but how dare Trump turn the tables on them!
Incidentally, although Anheuser-Busch cravenly pulled out of a contract with King, I have heard that King got a new, better one with another company. Also, I’ve heard that people are boycotting Busch for its cowardice, which is only right and proper.
Education madness in Seattle. I was talking to a young friend today who just got a lovely job offer. The interview came about because a friend recommended her to the company. The offer occurred because she’s smart, hardworking, personable, organized, and a perfect fit for the job.
It’s probable that, had there been 30 other equally qualified candidates, the company could have just pulled a name out of a hat but, instead, the company gave the job to my young friend because she came with a recommendation for a source they respected. That’s life. Life isn’t always fair. Not everyone has a friend who can help them with such useful specificity. In a sane world, when we have such a friend, we are grateful that this person knocked on the door for us, but it’s always our responsibility to prove ourselves worthy once that door is opened.
Most of my young friend’s own friends were happy for her. Perhaps they said, “I wish that would happen to me,” but it didn’t adulterate their pleasure in her good fortune.
One of them, though, found it unforgivable. Although white herself, she castigated my young friend for benefiting from white privilege and strongly suggested that she ought not to have gotten the job and, once she got it, she should have rejected it in solidarity with others less privileged than she is.
Almost immediately after that happened, a friend in Marin sent me a message the school sent to all parents from the high school principal. I thought it made for barfy reading:
As I mentioned in the September newsletter, the Redwood staff will continue our anti-racism, anti-hate and anti-bias work to make sure that Redwood is a school where diversity and a variety of experiences and perspectives are valued as beneficial to all of us in our learning community.
One of the key features of this work is upstanding. Upstanding is the opposite of bystanding. Upstanding is being active, not passive. Upstanding is standing up and saying something or doing something when we see or can prevent wrong or hurt. It is the opposite of “letting it go,” “looking away” and “turning a blind eye.” Upstanding is saying something when a racist, insensitive or stereotyping comment is made. Upstanding is helping someone who is being picked on or bullied or attacked. Upstanding is reporting a problem to an adult in our school or confidentially letting us know through our confidential tip line. Anti-racism, anti-hate and anti-bias work requires us to upstand if we are to make a positive difference to our school culture and community. If we want to appreciate each other and embrace and celebrate our differences, we need to upstand when we see or experience racism, hate or bias.
Upstanding is important in other areas as well as anti-racist work. It is important when we see sexual harassment, bullying and other mistreatment of others whether in person or online. Sometimes upstanding means saying something to others (always in a respectful and appropriate way). Other times, upstanding means sharing your concerns with a school staff member. Either way, the difference between upstanding and bystanding is the difference between doing something to make our school culture better for everyone at Redwood and ignoring the type of behavior that can hurt others, emotionally and/or physically.
My friend told me that the school has been shutting down extracurricular programs to fund all this social justice stuff.
Also, this school is not a hotbed of racial strife and hatred. It’s an ordinary school in a relatively affluent neighborhood, with families that are almost entirely Progressive, all of whom preach political correctness. This is virtue-signaling pure and simple.
Moreover, it’s a lie. If your child goes into the school and starts preaching about the Second Amendment, I can guarantee you that your child will find himself in a police station for being a threat. Conservativism, whether political or social, is not welcome there.
But the above message is where people like my young friend’s ill-wisher learn their ideas about “privilege.”
Once upon a time, if you came from a “privileged” background (which meant affluent and educated), you were grateful and, if you were well brought up, you believed it was your responsibility to share that privilege and to help other people.
Today, though, “privilege” is code for “white self-loathing.” These young people are being taught to hate themselves and, instead of sharing their blessings, they’re being told that they need to give them up. This is not about raising people up but about tearing people down. It’s the politics of greed and resentment written into our nation’s social fabric and our young people’s minds.
Which leads me to what’s going on in the Seattle Public School District. This is another school district in which black students are failing and the district, rather than teaching better, is doubling down on the politics of victimhood and resentment.
In May 2019, Stephan Blanford, a deeply Progressive former member of the school board launched an attack on those who failed to agree with the school’s Progressive strategic plan. I’ll get to the plan in a minute, but I just want to cite the statistics that Blanford and the Board felt justified the new plan:
Today, students in Seattle Public Schools lag behind students in other large school districts in our area. Only 53 percent of Seattle students meet grade-level science standards. Compared to nearby Bellevue and Lake Washington school districts, Seattle is underperforming by significant margins.
This statistic and others like it don’t capture the whole story. The achievement gap between higher- and lower-performing schools remains significant in Seattle. Our failures to address inequity have dramatic impacts on the lives of real kids, many of them students of color, whose parents are less likely to engage with our city’s power structure or follow online blog debates.
The District’s answer to a very real problem is victimhood. I’ve embedded the first page of strategic plan, below. The highlights are mine. You can click on the image twice to enlarge it:
As you can see, while the goals are laudable, the method to achieve them is to drill into the students that they are victims of an inherently racist system. That’s bad. What’s really bad is the “math ethnic studies framework” the school district worked up for the kids. To understand what you’re reading, you need to know that “SWBAT” means “students will be able to. This time I’m embedding the entire document. Again, the highlights are mine and you can enlarge the images by clicking on them twice:
Translated: “Dear black children, everything that’s important about math predates the Greeks. The Greeks stole from Black Africans and Egyptians. Moreover, when this stolen math came Westerners compounded this theft by stealing Arabic numbers and the concept of zero from the Arabs (who first stole them from the Indian subcontinent). Since its origins in Africa and India, math has been used to destroy you, to oppress you, to demean you, to deny you opportunities to succeed, and to humiliate you. It is a vile instrument of white hegemony over the black man. Oh, and you’d better learn it because it’s a good thing to know.”
In California in the 1970s through the 1990s, there was a totally misbegotten “self-esteem” theory in education. This theory was premised on the observation that good students had high self-esteem. The idiocrats in education concluded that high self-esteem made for good students. It never occurred to them that hard work and the reward of learning created high self-esteem, rather than self-esteem driving hard work and learning. California ended up with several generations of children who felt great about themselves, but who could barely read, write, or do math, and who were completely ignorant about the world.
What’s happening in Seattle is worse. Seattle is create generations of children with a profound sense of victimhood, resentment, and rancor, and then expecting them to embrace education. Only a Progressive could think that this is a pathway to instilling a love of learning into children.
*I’d originally tried doing identical posts and podcasts, but that wasn’t working for me. I seem to use different parts of my brain when I talk and when I write. I ended up simply reading my posts aloud for the podcast, which really killed the fun for me. I’m now trying a system I think will work better, which is to go in this order (1) thinking about things; (2) making notes and collecting documents; (3) podcasting in a more free-form way; (4) writing a companion/parallel post. As always, I value your feedback.
NOTE: In the podcast, I mentioned one of my favorite books, which is an early insight into the Leftist takeover of education and media. The book is Helen MacInnes’s Neither Five Nor Three. I wrote about it here.
In my latest podcast, the story of the sweet beer guy and the doxxing reporter is a microcosm of Democrat behavior, plus education madness in Seattle.
My latest podcast is up and running. You can listen to it through the audio embed below, or at LibSyn, or through Apple Podcasts.
Here’s the brief summary:
1. I look at the way the Democrats’ new claim of victimhood, now that they’re being investigated, parallels the way in which Aaron Calvin, the reporter who doxxed Carson “buy me a beer” King, is crying victim now that he’s been doxxed and fired.
2. I look at the insanity of the Seattle Public School District’s decision to improve black students’ educational outcomes by telling them that they are oppressed victims of an inherently unfair system that has exploited them for hundreds, even thousands, of years. Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t see this working well.
I’ll be putting these same ideas in a post and will cross-link soon if you prefer reading to listening.
Progressives want to portray any investigation of Biden or the Trump Russia hoax as fundamentally illegitimate. Is Joe Biden above the law?
We’re getting stuff in a bit of reverse order. Yesterday, the White House made public the memorialization of the July 25, 2019, phone call between President Trump and President Zelinskyy of Ukraine, the text of which I embedded here. That phone call, as it turns out, was the entire centerpiece of the whistle blower complaint.
Today, that Whistle Blower Complaint has been released, along with a cover letter from the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IG IC) detailing the IG IC handling and assessment of the complaint. Neither the whistle blower nor the IGIC had seen the memorialization of the July 25 phone call prior to writing their documents. The whistle blower had no first hand knowledge of the conversation, nor any of the other facts alleged in the complaint that did not appear publicly in the news (itself hearsay). All of the allegations in the document are hearsay or multi-layered hearsay, most coupled with bald accusations and spin. At the center of it all, this from the complaint:
Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests. Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’ s 2020 reelection bid. According to the White House officials who had direct knowledge of the call, the President pressured Mr. Zelenskyy to:
initiate or continue an investigation the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son , Hunter Biden;
assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U . S. presidential election originated in Ukraine, with a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U . S . cyber security firm Crowdstrike, which initially reported that Russian hackers had penetrated the DNC’ s networks in 2016; and
meet or speak with two people the President named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters,Mr. Giuliani and Attorney General Barr, to whom the President referred multiple times in tandem .
Of the whistle blowers three claims above, the only one seemingly being pushed as meaningful concerns Joe Biden blatantly conditioning American aid to Ukraine on shutting down the corruption investigation that was, in part, aimed at his son. And other than the July 25 conversation, much of the rest of the complaint concerns meetings taken by Rudy Giuliani that show nothing. The meat of it all is the phone conversation of July 25, something that does not on its face establish that Trump proposed an unlawful quid pro quo to Zelinskyy.
So now what do the progressives and the MSM do? They start by outright lying about what was said in the phone conversation between Trump and Zelinskyy. And for that, we go to Adam Schiff’s opening statement at today’s House Intelligence Committee Hearing on the whistle blower complaint.
A Fantasy Full of Schiff
This may be the most scurrilous opening statement ever given. Rep. Adam Schiff made up a series of facts and quotes out of whole cloth to portray the July 25 phone call between President Trump and President Zelinskyy as a Trump demand that Ukraine fabricate “dirt” on 2020 candidates if he wanted to receive American aid:
Rep. Adam Schiff acknowledged on Thursday that he made up parts of the Ukraine phone call transcript when he delivered his opening statement at a much-watched TV hearing with the U.S. top intelligence officer.
Mr. Schiff, California Democrat and chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said his reading was “part in parody”––but made the admission only after Rep. Mike Turner, Ohio Republican, called him out.
In his opening statement, Mr. Schiff said Mr. Trump asked Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky for fabricated dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden and said Mr. Trump threatened to make the same request Mr. Zelensky eight times–––both quotes not in the transcript.
When it came his time to question Joseph Maguire, the acting Director of National Intelligence, Mr. Turner noted inaccuracies uttered to a large TV audience as Democrats rev up talk of impeachment.
“It’s not the conversation that was in the chairman’s opening statement,” Mr. Turner said. “And while the chairman was speaking I actually had someone text me, ‘is he just making this up?’ And yes, yes, . . .
Parody my eye. Schiff did nothing to point that out his fabrications during his speech. It was an utterly outrageous attempt to influence public opinion with scurrilous lies. Schiff should be subject to an ethics complaint and expelled from the House for that.
The Quid Pro Quo Wasn’t Stated In The Phone Call Because Supposedly It Was Common Knowledge To The Ukrainians
With no quid pro quo in the July 25 phone call, a second effort is underway to make it seem as if the quid pro quo was so well known to the participants that it did not require statement during the phone call. The whistle blower states:
During [the May – June] time frame, multiple U . S. officials told me that the Ukrainian leadership was led to believe that a meeting or phone call between the President and President Zelenskyy would depend on whether Zelenskyy showed willingness to play ball. . . . This was the state of affairs as conveyed to me by U.S. officials from late May into July. I do not know who delivered this message to the Ukrainian leadership, or when.
Setting record straight: @Leshchenkos confirmed to me what those of us in Kyiv already knew—he is NOT currently an advisor to Ukraine’s Zelenskiy & wasn’t at time of July 25 call. He said he DID NOT tell ABC insistence for leaders to discuss Biden probe was precondition for call. https://t.co/fNh5sMYj9i
For their final attempt at breathing life into this farce, the MSM is taking a page from the FBI and their treatment of Christopher Steele. The FBI, in their four applications for a FISA warrant, tried to redeem the fact that all the information in their applications was hearsay by telling the Court that Christopher Steele, the source providing the hearsay, was trustworthy and knowledgeable. Now it is the MSM’s turn to try and pull that same trick as pertains to the anonymous whistle blower.
The whistle-blower who revealed that President Trump sought foreign help for his re-election and that the White House sought to cover it up is a C.I.A. officer who was detailed to work at the White House at one point, according to three people familiar with his identity.
The man has since returned to the C.I.A., the people said. Little else is known about him. His complaint made public Thursday suggested he was an analyst by training and made clear he was steeped in details of American foreign policy toward Europe, demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of Ukrainian politics and at least some knowledge of the law.
The whistle-blower’s expertise will likely add to lawmakers’ confidence about the merits of his complaint, and tamp down allegations that he might have misunderstood what he learned about Mr. Trump. He did not listen directly to a July call between Mr. Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine that is at the center of the political firestorm over the president’s mixing of diplomacy with personal political gain.
No need to worry about reliable facts or the actual law. Trust the Deep State and they will take care of it all.
Getting Dirt or Investigate Corruption?
We can thank Adam Schiff for one thing today, and that is making it crystal clear that he wants America to believe that what Trump was doing in the June 25 phone call was nothing more than to “make up dirt on my political opponent, understand? Lots of dirt, on this and on that.”
Except that is not what Trump asked Zelinskyy to do. The first thing Trump asks of Zelinskyy is to provide the information he has on 2016 election interference coming out of the Ukraine and help in locating the DNC server. None of that is aimed at the 2020 candidates, though progressives want to try and bootstrap that information into being viewed as illegitimate as well. Indeed, Schiff, in his statement, implies that all the information Trump asked for will be false and made up by the Ukraine.
Trump did raise Joe Biden’s outrageous abuse of power to shut down an investigation aimed at Hunter Biden. Here is precisely what Trump said:
Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. . . . The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.
Taking Trump’s words at face value, he asks for nothing other then to look into an incident that supposedly occurred, not to create dirt out of whole cloth. So is Joe Biden, who indeed has been quite open about extorting the Ukraine with American aid money, now immune from any investigation because it might in fact show him in a bad, possibly criminal, light as he is running for the highest office in the land? Is he above the law?
Part of the answer to that question rests on whether there indeed was an ongoing Ukrainian investigation that reached to Hunter Biden on the day when Joe extorted the then Ukrainian President to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor.
In March 2016, Joe Biden threatened to withhold IMF funding from Ukraine if officials did not fire Viktor Shokin, who was then serving as Ukraine’s Prosecutor General. At the time, Shokin’s office was overseeing an investigation into Burisma and its owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. According to Bloomberg’s source, Shokin’s investigation had been “shelved” in 2015, well before Biden’s intervention, and “[t]here was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against Zlochevsky.” Various outlets seized on the report to dismiss coverage of the Biden scandal:
PolitiFact: “It’s not even clear that the company was actively under investigation”
Axios: “Ukrainian official knocks down Biden conflict scandal”
New York Magazine: “The investigation into Burisma was dead long before Biden started his campaign to oust Shokin”
Do read the whole article. It goes on to explain that the information was incorrect. That said, probably the definitive answer to the Hunter Biden question comes from investigative reporter John Solomon. His answer, based on hundred of documents and interviews, is yes, the investigation was quite active when Biden shut it down. (H/T Ace)
So the real question at issue is whether Joe Biden above the law. Because, as Andrew McCarthy points out today at NRO, to claim he should not be investigated seems the mother of all double standards.
What Laws Did Trump Violate In His Phone Call With President Zelinskyy?
By Joe Biden’s own admission, he extorted the Ukraine with American tax dollars. What he demanded and received benefited his son and prevented the Obama-Biden administration from being embarrassed. That certainly seems an act of corruption. If so, can asking a foreign power to continue what had been a valid investigation of corruption on its own soil constitute an impeachable offense?
In the IC IG letter linked at the top of this post (and, in an act of pure incompetence, composed by the IG IC without ever seeing or even asking to see the memorialization of the July 25 phone conversation), the IG IC laid out the supposed offenses that the President is alleged to have violated with his conduct:
Here, the Complainant’s Letter alleged, among other things, that the President of the United States, in a telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodyrnyr Zelenskyy on July 25, 2019, “sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid.” U.S. laws and regulations prohibit a foreign national, directly or indirectly, from making a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election. Similarly, U.S. laws and regulations prohibit a person from soliciting, accepting, or receiving such a contribution or donation from a foreign. national, directly or indirectly, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election. Further, in the ICIG’s judgment, alleged conduct by a senior U.S. public official to seek foreign assistance to interfere in or influence a Federal election would constitute a “serious or flagrant problem [or] abuse” under 50 U.S.C. § 3033 (k)(5)(G)(i), which would also potentially expose such a U.S. public official (or others acting in concert with the U.S. public official) to serious national security and counterintelligence risks with respect to foreign intelligence services aware of such alleged conduct.
I am having real trouble identifying how Trump could have violated any of those statutes based on the facts as we know them now. I will admit that I am not an expert in this area of the law and, if anyone can correct me, feel free. This is not a case of soliciting donations or offering bribes. This is not a case, unlike 2016, where there were alleged underlying crimes in which Trump was alleged to have conspired.
Information itself may be of value, but I do not know of any court case where obtaining foreign information was deemed a violation of the law. If that’s the case, lock up the DNC and Hillary for life after what they did in 2016, paying a Brit to get information from Russia and publish it a month before the election.
As Kevin Williamson points out, the threat to impeach Trump began in December, 2016, even before he came to office. His real impeachable offense, in the eyes of the left, was winning the election.
. . . Any president has a perfect right to tell a foreign head of state and recipient of major U.S. aid that his corruption-plagued country has played a destabilizing but still murky role in recent American elections and in scandals that have affected the American people, and in particular the current president of the United States — and that it would be a good thing to get to the bottom of it.
Americans, left and right, would like to know the exact nature of Ukrainian-Russian interference and the degree, if any, to which CrowdStrike played a role in the Clinton-email imbroglio and why CrowdStrike (which analyzed the server that the DNC refused to turn over to the FBI) was apparently exempt from FBI investigation.
That Biden is now a Democratic front-runner does not provide immunity or excuse the fact that he was vice president of the United States tasked with Ukrainian affairs when his problem-plagued son, without any energy or foreign-policy experience, made a great deal of money for apparently nothing more than lending his Biden name to benefit a corrupt Ukrainian-Russian-related company. Nor should we overlook that Joe Biden threatened to cut off U.S. aid — $1 billion — to Ukraine if it did not within six hours fire the too-curious prosecutor who was looking into the mess. And that prosecutor was fired. And that $1 billion in aid was not cut off. And Hunter Biden was no longer a target of any investigation. And he made a great deal of money. . . .
I agree with Hanson’s ultimate conclusion, that this will destroy Biden’s candidacy. And . . . it will do nothing more than strengthen Trump in the eyes of voters.
In this Bookworm Beat, I cover the motives behind the Ukraine whistleblower kerfuffle, things at college that scare parents, and gender neutral dolls.
(If you prefer listening over reading, the companion podcast to this post is embedded below, or you can listen to it at Libsyn or at Apple podcasts. I’m trying to make a go of my podcasting so, if you like the podcasts, please share them with your friends and on social media. Giving my podcast good ratings helps too.)
Thoughts on the Ukraine whistleblower scam. As a preliminary matter, I’ve read both the Trump transcript, which was innocuous, and the “whistleblower’s” allegations, which are not only hearsay, but are as ephemeral and meaningless as chalk on a sidewalk before the rains come. Neither document even hints at a quid pro quo. The MSM knows this, which is why it uses ellipses to remove more than 540 words between Trump’s request for a favor and any reference he makes to Biden and his son.
I’ve learned, as others have, that Bill Clinton signed off on a treaty in the 1990s allowing cooperation between the U.S. and Ukraine to investigate and prosecute crimes. I’ve seen the growing suspicion that Adam Schiff engineered this whole thing. And I’ve seen that John Solomon reports that he has hundreds of pages of documents showing the remarkable coincidence that the same prosecutor who was investigating Biden’s son was the person Biden demanded be fired – and remember that Biden did so using the weight of U.S. finances as a cudgel and then boasting about it later. I’m also fully cognizant of the fact that Hunter Biden is a morally lost young man who has made himself fabulously wealthy selling his complete lack of expertise to foreign governments such as China and Ukraine, countries that, at the time, hoped for favors from a Veep who claimed to have Obama’s ear.
All that’s the obvious stuff. I bet you know it too. What I find more interesting is the blind hatred and the actual motive driving the Democrats here. A post from Frank Bruni over at msn news exemplifies what I’m talking about. Bruni pretends to be terrified about impeachment, although he assures readers that “President Trump deserves to be impeached.” Bruni then spells out why Trump “deserves” to be impeached:
Arguably, it’s the only move, at least in terms of fidelity to the Constitution and to basic decency. From the moment that Trump stepped into the office of the presidency, he has degraded it — with words that a president has no business speaking (or tweeting); with ceaseless lies; with infantile and often unhinged behavior; with raging conflicts of interest; with managerial ineptitude; with a rapacious ego that’s never sated; and with foreign dealings that compromise America’s values, independence and interests. How can principled lawmakers not tell him, in the most emphatic manner available, that enough is enough?
Reading over the above, with it’s exuberant use of adjectives, I’m reminded that, just today, the Pope warned people away from adjectives. How boring! Also, how Big Brother-ish to limit people’s thoughts by limiting the words available to them.
What does Bruni’s avalanche of words (including adjectives) really mean? Let me run this through the logical translator:
When Bruni says “with words that a president has no business speaking (or tweeting)” he means “he hurt our feelings.”
When Bruni says “with ceaseless lies” he means “he’s made statements of fact with which we disagree or that we deliberately (and repeatedly) misinterpret.”
When Bruni says “with infantile and often unhinged behavior” he means “Trump’s being an ordinary guy who fails to live up to the hip, no-drama Obama cool image we basked in for eight years.”
When Bruni says “with raging conflicts of interest” he means “Trump was and is a successful businessman, rather than a Leftist member of the perpetual political class, and his success more than anything exposes the weakness of our policies and the strength of his.
When Bruni says “with managerial ineptitude” he means “we hate that Trump gets more done in a week than Obama got done in eight years and, worse, he’s managed to undo most of what Obama did manage to do.
When Bruni says “with a rapacious ego that’s never stated” he means “we deeply resent that Trump has figured out a way to circumvent the fact that 90% of the media is Progressive and refuses to acknowledge his accomplishments.”
When Bruni says “foreign dealings that compromise America’s values, independence and interests” he means “we can’t stand that Trump has used his Constitutional authority over foreign policy and national security to turn away from Obama’s love affairs with Islamic theocrats, such as Iran’s mullahs, and hardcore communists, such as Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, or Xi Jinping and, instead, has turned towards liberty-loving countries such as Israel, the Central European countries that threw off communism’s yoke, and the East Asian nations worried about a rapacious China.”
In sum, what Bruni really means is that Progressives hate everything Trump stands for, that they don’t trust the voters, those stupid, stupid voters who elected Trump in the first place, and that they must kick Trump out of office in 2020 or sooner, because he’s just a totally icky, white supremacist troglodyte.
Bruni ostensibly worries that impeachment, rather than driving Trump out of office, will solidify his hold on the White House. Moreover, he legitimately worries that the Democrat base will be enraged when, despite the House’s efforts, the whole initiative comes to a dead-end in the Senate.
Still, angry Progressives notwithstanding, when Bruni says he’s terrified he’s being disingenuous. Of course he knows impeachment will fail. Even the squad – that weird sister foursome of Omar, Tlaib, Occasional-Cortex, and what’s her name again –understands this. To the extent he’s Bruni is tapping the brakes here, he does so only to spare the fanatics too much disappointment when impeachment goes down in flames. But Bruni himself still really wants impeachment. Why?
Impeachment plugs into the same narrative [as Russian collusion] which is not just about winning, but delegitimizing.
Democrats want to win elections. Radicals want to delegitimize the entire idea of elections. Pelosi wants to win an election. The radicals don’t want to win elections. They want to destroy them. Their real goal is to use blind hatred of Republicans to convince Democrats that elections are inherently illegitimate. All their arguments, whether about Russian Facebook bots or the Electoral College circle back to that.
The choosing of governments, it follows, is too important an issue to be left to mere voters whose voting machines and brains are all too easily hacked by disinformation campaigns and FOX News.
And the removal of President Trump from office is also too important to be left to those same voters.
This true motive, to delegitimize both Trump and the entire Constitutional, electoral system is something that I can assure you Bruni supports wholeheartedly.
Put another way, what we’re seeing here is the twin to the motive that Christine Blowsy-Fraud and other Leftists had when making their manifestly false and salacious claims against Justice Brett Kavanaugh – delegitimization. We suspected that, of course, but Blowsy-Fraud’s attorney totally gave the game away:
It will be fascinating to watch this story unfold, although it will be fascinating in the same way one watches a horror movie, frozen with fear as the killer sneaks up on his victim. The best outcome would be for this whole charade to destroy the Democrats.
When I read my Facebook feed, though, which is mostly made up of Democrats who became part of my life during the decades I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area, I see that they are true believers and will never give up. Instead, they’ll become only more outraged and enraged. This is a scary thought because most of them are college-educated and in positions of power over the culture and over up-and-coming generations. Their children also show every sign of following in their footsteps.
Maybe Democrats are wising up to problems with college. Those who know me know that I have a real bee in my bonnet about American college education. My hostility to higher ed isn’t new. Indeed, it goes back to my days at UC Berkeley, at the end of the 70s and the beginning of the 80s.
I excelled at Cal as a liberal arts major, which is not a boast. It’s a complaint. I’m not that smart and I didn’t work at all. I ought not to have excelled. The fact that I did so means that standards for liberal arts majors, even back then, were abysmal. Being marginally literate was enough to push you to the head of the class.
I also had a real problem with the Marxist gloss so many of the classes had. I didn’t realize it was Marxist because I was politically uninformed. I did realize, though, that teachers were contorting themselves in ridiculous ways to put a class veneer on medieval, Tudor, Stuart, and Hanover England. Their lessons made no sense, and one thing I do have is a fairly good BS meter.
That was all a long time ago, and things have only gotten worse. In my last Bookworm Beat post, I launched one of my obsessive attacks on today’s colleges and universities as the incubators for every bad idea in America. I’ll spare you and won’t repeat it here. I’ll say only that, if Americans want to return our country to its Constitutional roots, the best way for them to do so is to demand that their congressional representatives enact a bill to withdraw all federal funds (aka taxpayer money) from colleges and universities (although I might be amenable to a tiny, tiny carveout for research directly related to national security issues).
Given that I just went on this rant a few days ago, why am I doing it again? I’m doing it again because a couple of my true believer Progressive Facebook friends have been sharing a June 2019 article entitled “A Very Dangerous Place for a Child is College.” It’s fascinating and worth reading in its entirety.
The author, Louis M. Profeta, is an emergency room physician who decided to take on the road the information he’d learned from seeing college kids head into the ER. His point, and it’s a good one, is that too many American kids are immature and naïve to the point of death or permanent disability.
Dr. Profeta’s crusade started a couple of years ago when he wrote his first essay on the subject, “A Sunday Talk on Sex, Drugs, Drinking, and Dying with the Frat Boys.” That’s the title. In fact, it’s not just about frat boys. Profeta is talking about young people generally who are drowning in data and who pull all the wrong lessons from what comes their way.
Thanks to that article, Dr. Profeta got a second gig as a college speaker. In his current article, he describes, not just the information he gives the students, but also the questions they ask him. These questions make sense only if you consider that this is the “hey, let’s eat Tide Pods” generation:
I hadn’t held anything back from the students. I warned them beforehand. I was coming from a different place, a place where doctors do rape exams, pump veins full of narcan and epinephrine, look at the clock and pronounce time of death and break horrible news to moms and dads. I had become kind of sick of it (giving out the bad news, I mean). It didn’t seem like much was working to change the tide of opiate abuse, reckless behavior, and other causes of death in young people so I figured I’d start going to the source and begging these students to, well, grow the fuck up.
Most loved the candor, the openness, the willingness of a seasoned ER doctor to answer uncomfortable questions about drugs and alcohol, sexual assault, and hazing, and a whole host of semi-taboo topics. But it was the questions when the “adults” were out of the room that made me say to myself, “Holy shit … so many of these ‘kids’ have absolutely no business being in college.”
“What about whippets, what if I just snorted one xanax, can you really soak a tampon in alcohol and get drunk, is cough syrup OK to mix with vodka, is ecstasy and molly the same thing, can’t you just strap a backpack to them to keep them from rolling over so they don’t choke on their own vomit, what about phenergan, what’s in skittles (not the candy), how many milligrams of THC can you eat and not die, are they starting to add stuff to coke (not the cola) that makes you more hyped, how much does it cost to go to an ER, will you call my parents if I go, how can you tell if your roommate is suicidal, what if you know your roommate is using heroin … should I tell their parents, how do I tell if the ‘bars’ I bought online are not fentanyl, I got raped last year … should I tell someone now, I think my roommate is going to probably kill herself…who do I tell?”
For a long time, Leftists have been assuring us that colleges are the “rapiest” places in the world. (No, this isn’t a non sequitur. Stick with me.) For example, here’s presidential wanna be, and chief groper and hair sniffer, Joe Biden, when he was still Veep, parroting that claim:
Of course, we’ve long known that parents don’t really believe that 20% of all college women will be raped. If they did, they’d never send their daughters to a place that has a higher rape rate than South Africa, a country that annually sees around 95 rapes per every 100,000 people.
Because the sex ratio in South Africa is roughly equal, that means that, out of every 50,000 women in South Africa, 95 of them can expect to be raped (and that includes women from ages 1 day old to 100 years old). If my math is correct, means that roughly .2% of the South African female population risks rape. In other words, I think we can all reasonably believe that Biden and the feminists have been exaggerating by at least a factor of 100 the risk of rape on American college campuses.
What isn’t exaggerated is what Dr. Profeta talks about. Progressive parents know in their heart of hearts that this the risks he describes are the real deal: It’s a youth culture saturated in drugs, depression, and dangerous behavior. Knowing this is what may make these Progressives finally turn their back on these colleges and have their children enter the real world, instead of pushing them into a dystopian Marxist fantasy-land, one that almost proudly assures parents that, by graduation 30% of all the kids could be diagnosed with a mental health disorder.
Certainly that’s what Dr. Profeta thinks should happen. He urges parents to save college for when their kids have grown up a bit:
We need to encourage our kids to slow it down, to take a longer path to college, perhaps. Expose our kids to real education—the kind of education that comes with a W-2, a boss, getting up early and working late and interacting with people who can’t afford a higher education. Make them appreciate the life experiences that come with nailing a 2 x 4, washing dishes, wheeling people to X-ray, picking up garbage, answering telephones. Make them earn their spending money BEFORE college and decide on their own if they’d rather use it on alcohol, weed, a four-block Uber ride, or laundry and food.
Teach them these things and send them off to school as adults.
Profeta’s advice is sound no matter how one looks at it. Not only will kids do fewer stupid things, it also means that young people who have indeed seen how the real world works will be less vulnerable to the social justice warrior, victimhood, Marxist politics preached at America’s institutions of so-called “higher education.”
As an aside, or maybe a follow-up, the crazy isn’t just in college. Our K-12 schools are staffed by graduates of these Marxist fantasy lands. That’s why we get stories about 5-year-old autistic boys being accused of sexual harassment for kissing a classmate on the cheek. And that’s why we get stories about a 6-year-old girl being arrested and led off in handcuffs and fingerprinted when she threw a tantrum at school and kicked a classmate. It’s hard for me to imagine the extenuating circumstances that could justify labeling a 5-year-old as a sexual harasser, especially one with autism, or cuffing a 6-year-old girl having a tantrum. The children were reacting, as children do; the adults were overreacting, as progressives do.
Not all college grads go into education, though. Most go into corporate America, which is how we get my next story, about a doll….
What happens when college grads get hold of dolls. Toymaker Mattel has admittedly taken a lot of grief over the years for Barbie, the impossibly voluptuous doll launched in the 1950s. I could never understand the outrage. I adored playing with my Barbies and, to the best of my knowledge, did not fight going to college or law school because of Barbie, nor did I develop a complex because I didn’t get a triple D bust, a 16 inch waist, 32 inch hips, and legs proportionately longer than Wilt Chamberlain’s with feet stuck in permanent high heel mode. To the extent I’m not normal, I blame my parents [joke] and a childhood in San Francisco [sort of a joke], not Barbie.
But as I said, Mattel got the flack. Fortunately, now that it’s fully staffed with woke college graduates, Mattel has a new plan: “Gender neutral dolls.”
From that video, I want to focus specifically on the words you heard from Jess Weiner, a 1995 University of Pennsylvania graduate. Let me repeat them for you:
This will be really challenging for a population of people. We will challenge people’s points of view about how they think boys and girls should play. You know, it’s so funny parents often tell me that they want to raise their boys to be really wonderful fathers. How do we expect to raise wonderful, nurturing fathers if we don’t encourage nurturing play when they’re boys?
I raised a boy (and sometimes it seems as if I raised a dozen boys, because so many were always in my house). Asking them to play with dolls was anathema. They wanted to run, roll, tumble, tussle, yell, shoot play guns, do sports, and just about anything but play with dolls.
I raised my son, and my friends raised their sons, to be wonderful, nurturing people by helping them understand that, to be good men, they had to care for those weaker than they are, and that to be good people they had to be kind and, within the family unit, loving. Buying a Mattel doll wouldn’t have reinforced these ethical lessons about being a good man; they would have confused and disgusted the boys.
If you watch the whole video, you’ll see a few other people earnestly assuring parents that the way to raise the best boys and girls (but especially the best boys) is to get them playing with dolls who look like confused refugees from a San Francisco hipster Starbucks. As I noted above, Weiner is a UPenn grad. Other voices are Lisa McKnight, a Denison University grad; Kim Culmone, a 1992 Louisiana State University grad; Linda Jiang, a 2013 Otis College of Art and Design grad; and Monica Dreger, a Boston University grad from (I’m guessing) the early to mid-1990s.
To give you a little idea about the colleges from which these women graduated, UPenn hosted a toxic masculinity seminar during this past year’s Super Bowl; Boston University just got hit with a $100,000 verdict against it in a lawsuit that John Doe brought because they mishandled sexual assault allegations against him; Denison was home to a professor who felt that the chant “all lives matter” was irritating and showed covert racism; Louisiana State University made news when the administration tampered with photos to remove crosses that students were wearing; Boston University is placing audience size restrictions on Ben Shapiro’s upcoming talk; and at Otis College, to the extent faculty members made political donations, 100% of those faculty members gave money to Maxine Waters.
Did I mention that we need to take federal money out of academia?
The only place in which I find gender confusion even marginally amusing is in the Kinks’ great song, Lola – which I’d like to believe never changed anyone’s sexuality:
Girls will be boys and boys will be girls
It’s a mixed up, muddled up, sup world, except for Lola
Well, I left home just a week before
And I’d never ever kissed a woman before
But Lola smiled and took me by the hand
And said “Dear boy, I’m gonna make you a man”
Well, I’m not the world’s most masculine man
But I know what I am and I’m glad I’m a man
And so is Lola
Alternate title: Ukraine, Donald Trump and Joe Biden — Quid Pro No
First, for all those of you deep in a dark fantasy of impeaching Trump, an oldie but a goodie
Watch. Recapture the excitement as you waited expectantly for impeachment to overturn the election results but a few months ago. This one has it all. Progressive politics as religion. An indictment of Trump for the high crime and misdemeanor of winning the 2016 election, of being the “worst” and, in addition, committing almost all forty of the fantasy crimes and wrongs articulated by the NYT that Bookworm addressed in her post yesterday. After you’re done with the sing-along, might I suggest a safe space and some My Little Pony coloring books. Hold on tight to your dreams.
For the rest of us . . .
President Trump this morning released the transcript of his phone call with President of Ukraine. The transcript of the entire conversation is below. A few comments on it first.
It appears that the DNC Server — the one that was hacked and set off the whole Trump-Russia mania — is in the Ukraine. This from the memo (emphasis mine):
The President:I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot. of things that went on, the whole situation .. I think you’re _surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.
Holy smokes!!! What in the world is going on with that? This stinks to high heaven.
One of the most corrupt aspects of the entire Trump-Russia coup attempt was the FBI’s failure to secure and investigate the DNC server. You remember, of course, that the DNC claimed Russia hacked its server. The DNC based this claim upon a report from Crowdstrike, a computer analytic firm that Perkins Coie hired on the DNC’s behalf. Because the DNC refused to hand its serve to the FBI / DOJ, those agencies could only clutch to their collective breasts a redacted, draft version of the Crowdstrike report. It was this report, based upon a server they never analyzed, that the FBI / DOJ used as a foundation for the Trump investigation.
What’s staggering is that the above conversation strongly indicates that the DNC server, which the DNC refused to allow even the FBI or Special Counsel Robert Mueller to examine, is being stored outside U.S. borders and in the Ukraine. What the hell?
Further, it seems from what Trump said that people in the Ukraine were involved both in the hoax and in meddling with the 2016 campaign. That was news to me. I haven’t seen that information before, but here is the Washington Times today verifying it:
U.S. Attorney John Durham is investigating Ukraine’s role in the 2016 FBI probe of President Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, the Department of Justice confirmed Wednesday. . . .
“A Department of Justice team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is separately exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election,” DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in a statement.
Ms. Kupec said Ukrainians who are not government officials have already volunteered information as part of the probe. She also said that Mr. Barr has not yet contacted the Ukrainian government over the investigation. . . .
A few points: One, this is starting to sound like a Tom Clancy novel. Two, it is no wonder that some people are near frantic to impeach Trump and short circuit the investigation into the Trump-Russia coup. Three, the MSM is studiously ignoring any part of the transcript Trump released that doesn’t deal directly with Biden. This means that the MSM’s audience, unless its members are curious enough to read the transcript themselves, will never know about the peculiar relationship between the DNC and Ukraine or about the missing DNC server that triggered the whole Russiagate hoax. So, for example, you get this from the NYT: Trump Asks Ukraine’s Leader to ‘Do Us a Favor’ and Also Urges Inquiry of Biden
Quid pro NO
Sorry, progressives, notwithstanding all your swamp fever dreams of impeachment, Trump did not propose a quid pro quo nor did he commit any wrongdoing vis-a-vis his phone conversation with Ukraine’s president. Biden predicated previously-agreed-upon financial aid to Ukraine by demanding at the last minute that Ukraine agree to fire the prosecutor general investigating his son. (“Nice little country you’ve got here. It would be a same if something happened to it.”) There is nothing in the transcript that sees Trump saying “I’m doing nothing for you unless you first do this for me.”
Nor did Trump propose aid in return for investigating Joe Biden’s corrupt act. It is apparent that, while Trump’s request for a follow-up investigation occurred in the context of other agreed-upon exchanges of goods and services (so to speak), none of these other arrangements were contingent upon Ukraine agreeing with Trump’s request.
Most importantly, perhaps, as to those things the President of the Ukraine indicated that he intended to investigate, the only promises he made to President Trump were to conduct open and fair investigations and to provide honest information.
Crazy Nancy has given in to the radical fringe of her party (as an aside, it was not long ago that she was the radical fringe) and is still trying to keep the dream alive. She issued this statement today, as slanderous as it was based on falsehoods:
The release of the notes of the call by the White House confirms that the President engaged in behavior that undermines the integrity of our elections, the dignity of the office he holds and our national security. The President has tried to make lawlessness a virtue in America and now is exporting it abroad.
“I respect the responsibility of the President to engage with foreign leaders as part of his job. It is not part of his job to use taxpayer money to shake down other countries for the benefit of his campaign. Either the President does not know the weight of his words or he does not care about ethics or his constitutional responsibilities.
“The transcript and the Justice Department’s acting in a rogue fashion in being complicit in the President’s lawlessness confirm the need for an impeachment inquiry. Clearly, the Congress must act. . . .
You decide how far out of touch with reality she is. This from the memo (emphasis mine):
The President:I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it There are a lot. of things that went on, the whole situation .. I think you’re _surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.
President Zelenskyy: Yes it is. very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. . . ., I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly .. That I can assure you.
The President:Good because I· heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. . . . The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.
President Zelenskyy: . . . The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case.
This is Biden’s Waterloo
Biden is already in trouble, running a moribund campaign and falling behind Sitting Bull in the latest national poll. This transcript turns the spotlight onto Biden’s corrupt act in the Ukraine, a topic that will be invoked endlessly as long as it is in the news. And it is just going to get worse when all of the China corruption involving Hunter Biden is forced into the mainstream. I can’t see how Biden survives it. And the real irony of it all is that the “whistleblower’s” lead attorney has donated to Biden.
Here is the memo of the conversation released today in it entirety:
Telephone Conversation with President
Zelenskyy of Ukraine
Pre·sident Zelenskyy of Ukraine
Notetakers: The White House Situation Room
July 25, 2019, 9:03 – 9:33 a.m. EDT
The President: Congratulations on a great victory. We all watched from the United States and you did a terrific.job. The way.you came from behind, -somebody who wasn’t given much of a chance, and you ended up winning easily. It’s a fantastic achievement. Congratulations.
President Zelenskyy: You· are absolutely right Mr. President. We did win big and we worked hard for this. We worked a lot but I would like to confess to you that I had an opportunity to learn from you. We used quite a few of your skills and knowledge and were able to use it as an example for our elections and yes it is true that these were unique elections. We were in a unique situation that we were able to achieve a unique success. I’m able to tell you the following: the first time, you· called me to congratulate me when I won my presidential election, and the second time you are now calling me when my party won the parliamentary election. I think I should run more often so you can call me more often and we can talk over the phone more often.
The President: [laughter] That’s a very good idea. I think your country is very happy about that.
President Zelenskyy: Well yes, to tell you the truth, we are trying to work hard because we wanted to drain the swamp here in our country. We brought in many many new people. Not the old politicians, not the typical politicians, because we want to have a new format and a new type of government. You are a great teacher for us and in that.
The President: Well it’s very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it’s something that you should ·really ask them about. When I.was· speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she doesn’t do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way, so I think it’s something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn’t say that it’s reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.
President Zelenskyy: Yes you are·absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1000% and I can tell you the following; I did talk to Angela Merkel and I did meet with her. I also met and talked with Macron and I told them that they are not doing quite as much as they need to be doing on the issues with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the sanctions. They are not working as much as they should work for Ukraine. It turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our biggest· partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than.the European Union and I’m very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United· States for defense purposes
The· President:I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it There are a lot. of things that went on, the whole situation .. I think you’re _surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.
President Zelenskyy: Yes it is. very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President,-· it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to· open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United· States and Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. I will. personally tell you that one· of my assistants· spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. I also· wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly .. That I can assure you ..
The President:Good because I· heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that’s really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor bf New York Ci:ty, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what’s happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States,· the woman was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.
President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell ·you about the prosecutor. First of all I understand and I’m knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament; the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make· sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one. who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree·with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough.
The President: Well, she’ s going to go through some things. I will. have Mr. Giuliani.give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to· the bottom of it. I’m sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot· of assets. It’s a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, their incredible ·people.
President Zelenskyy: I would like to tell you that I also have quite a few Ukrainian friends that live in the United States. Actually last time I traveled to the United States, I stayed in New York near Central Park and I stayed at the Trump Tower. I will talk to them and I hope to see them again in the future. I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington DC. On the other hand, I also wanted to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. As to the economy, there is much potential for our two countries and one of the issues that is very important for Ukraine is energy independence. I believe we can be very successful and cooperating on energy independence with United States. We are already working on cooperation. We are buying American oil but I am very hopeful for a future meeting. We will have more time and more opportunities to discuss these opportunities· and get to know each other better. I would like to thank you very much for your support
The President: Good. Well, thank you very much and I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call. Thank you. Whenever you would like to come to the White House, feel free to call. Give us a date and we’ll work that out. I look forward to seeing you.
President Zelenskyy: Thank ·you very much. I would be very happy to come and would be happy to meet with you personally and I . . . get to know. you better. I am looking forward to our meeting arid I also would like to invite you to visit Ukraine and come to the city bf Kyiv which is a beautiful city. We have a beautiful country Which would welcome you. On the other hand, I believe that on September_l we will be in Poland and we can meet in Poland hopefully. After that, it might be a very good idea for you to travel to Ukraine. We can either take my plane and go to Ukraine or we can take your plane, which is probably much better than mine.
The President: Okay, we can work that out. I look forward to seeing you in Washington and maybe in· Poland because I think we are going to be there at that time.
President Zelenskyy: Thank you very much Mr. President.
The President: Congratulations on a fantastic job you’ve done. The whole world was watching. I’m not sure it was so much of an upset but congratulations.
President Zelenskyy: Thank you Mr. President bye-bye.