1. Here, as if objective observers needed any more, is the definitive proof of what a dishonest, untrustworthy, biased partisan hack New York Times columnist Paul krugman is. Do present this to any of your Krugman-worshiping Facebook friends. I’m dying to hear their best spin attempts. It should be hilarious.
Yesterday, Krugman tweeted a photo of the President awarding Tiger Woods the Presidential Medal of Freedom , and wrote,
I’m old enough to remember when Presidential Medals of Freedom were given for showing courage and making sacrifices on behalf of the nation and the world. Tiger Woods … hits golf balls for money.
Washington Free Beacon editor Andrew Stiles quickly compiled this partial list of recipients of the honor during Obama’s Presidency:
- Michael Jordan
- Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
- Meryl Streep
- Steven Spielberg
- Robert Redford
- Robert De Niro
- Tom Hanks
- Yo-Yo Ma
- Bob Dylan
- Stevie Wonder
- Gloria Estefan
- Barbara Streisand
- James Taylor
- Diana Ross
- Bruce Springsteen
- Warren Buffett
- Tom Brokaw
- Lorne Michaels
What does this teach us about Krugman? Well, let’s see…
—He doesn’t check his facts before shooting off his metaphorical yap.
—He is so biased against the President that his judgment is untrustworthy and useless except to anti-Trump fanatics.
—He flagrantly endorses double standards, condemning one President he hates for the exact conduct that he found unobjectionable from a President he supported.
—He’s an idiot. Any pundit with multiple brain cells firing would hesitate to set himself up for ridicule like this, and would automatically make sure his complaint was supported by reality.
—This is the quality of columnists the New York Times employs.
2. And while we are on the topic of utter incompetence...Here is former Attorney General Michael Mukasey embarrassing CNN’s Chris Cuomo, who plays a lawyer on TV but who repeatedly makes misstatements of the law and legal ethics that any second year law student would be humiliated for making in class:
CNN’s Cuomo Prime Time
May 8, 2019
9:23:59 p.m. Eastern
CHRIS CUOMO: So, now you have this confounding question of what the President has the right to do in terms of blocking oversight versus what is right to do. I know you find that part of it cumbersome sometimes because, you know, your mind goes to the law all the time. But this is a political situation as well.
MICHAEL MUKASEY: Right, but it doesn’t always go to the law. In this case it goes to what prerogatives the President wants to protect. Not necessarily for his own sake but for the sake of the next guy. That is a concern of the White House on an ongoing basis. Every time they consider one of these questions, they consider not only what’s at stake now, but what’s going to be at stake later on if we turn this over or not.
CUOMO: Do you really believe that this President is worried about what precedent will be set for next administration?
MUKASEY: I believe that people in the White House counsel’s office are worried about that. I believe people on his staff are worried about that. Whether he’s worried about it, I don’t know and I share some of your doubts.
CUOMO: When you look at the categories of different things that would amount to privilege, what do you have here? Because when you look at national security, well, they have clearance in Congress. Certainly, certain members of them have high clearance. Then the other categories. What would apply as privilege?
MUKASEY: What would apply is executive privilege.
MUKASEY: McGahn’s disclosures. Because —
CUOMO: Even if he doesn’t work there anymore.
MUKASEY: Correct. It’s not whether he works there anymore, it’s whether he worked there at the time that he made them.
CUOMO: But does the privilege survive? I mean, it’s not the privilege of me giving you $5 and you representing me in a case against someone else. That’s a complete privilege. This is an incomplete privilege.
MUKASEY: That privilege — there are various ways that that survives. Number one, the disclosures that McGahn made to Mueller, which your last guest said were a complete waiver. That’s just flat-out wrong.
CUOMO: How do you know?
MUKASEY: [Laughs] Mueller is still a member of which branch of government?
MUKASEY: Thank you. It’s an executive privilege. Disclosure from one part of the executive to another part of the executive is not a waiver of the executive privilege.
CUOMO: Who says? It’s hard to find cases on point that’s why I ask you.
MUKASEY: Okay. The concept is inconsistent with waiver. Number one. Number two, if it is a waiver, it’s as you know from law school, waivers are narrowly construed. It’s a relinquishment of a right.
CUOMO: Doesn’t it go to the same corpus of fact.
MUKASEY: It’s not a question of corpus of fact, it’s a question of the actual disclosure. He can be deemed to have made a waiver to the extent that any of those disclosures were disclosed.
CUOMO: The larger question becomes why block —
MUKASEY: And limited to that.
CUOMO: Why block so much. You say you were fully exonerated. You say you have nothing to hide. You say you’re going to give everything you can. Everybody around him keeps saying he’s always transparent, he’s always giving everything. He’s giving nothing.
MUKASEY: Because the point of this is not to find out facts. We learned that when the report was made available on a far less redacted basis than it had been when originally disclosed, and three people came to look at it.
MUKASEY: How many Democrats do you think were among them? [Holds up zero with his hand]
CUOMO: Oh, you’re saying you don’t believe they want to look at facts because —
CUOMO: Because they say they want the whole thing. They don’t want to come and look at a limited thing. They want it all.
MUKASEY: Well, if they want — if they want it all then it would be unlawful to disclose it all.
CUOMO: But you think Mueller was out for facts, right?
MUKASEY: I think — of course I think Mueller was out for facts.
CUOMO: Good. That’s a good thing to say.
MUKASEY: The question is what he did with them.
CUOMO: Well, we’ll see when we get the full unredacted report. But here’s my concern–
MUKASEY: No, we’ve seen — come on. We got what? Six percent redacted. Mostly having to do with ongoing investigations.
CUOMO: It’s what percentage of it that you want to see.
CUOMO: Why not give it all if you have nothing to hide? Assuming it’s not about national security matters.
MUKASEY: Because –
CUOMO: Why not just do it.
MUKASEY: It’s about three things. National security matters, which you agree shouldn’t be disclosed. Matters that could affect ongoing cases, which I assume you think shouldn’t be disclosed. And grand jury material, which it is unlawful to disclose.
CUOMO: Well, but, you can go and petition a judge.
MUKASEY: No, you can’t.
CUOMO: Why can’t you go and deal with the 6E material that way? It’s been done before.
MUKASEY: No, you get a 6E order only for law enforcement purposes. That’s the limit.
CUOMO: So you can’t do it for anything else?
MUKASEY: No, sir.
CUOMO: The idea that in blocking all of these things he attacking the legitimacy–
MUKASEY: You can’t do it to satisfy congressional curiosity.
CUOMO: Well, it depends if it falls within their role of oversight.
MUKASEY: No, it doesn’t depend on that —
CUOMO: They have a constitutional duty to do that.
MUKASEY: The law says that you get a 6E order from a judge.
CUOMO: Oh, you’re talking about just that. I’m saying all of it in general. The President and his people keep arguing “all of this is wrong. It goes wrong all the way back to FISA. Everything they did with surveillance was wrong, wrong, wrong and wrongly intentioned.” Why spread it so wide like that when there is so little proof of the same?
MUKASEY: I don’t know that — who spread it that wide?
CUOMO: The President says it all the time. Now they’re saying that was spying what was done with Carter Page. “It was nefarious and wrongful.” We have no reason to believe that.
MUKASEY: We have a lot of reasons to believe that something was done that shouldn’t have been done.
CUOMO: How do you know? They got the — they got the FISA application for Carter Page. It was successively reauthorized. What was wrongs with that?
MUKASEY: Based on incomplete information. Number one. Number two, the person who was the occasion for the surveillance, Carter Page.
MUKASEY: Was never charged with anything.
CUOMO: Who said he had to be?
MUKASEY: You had to make a showing and an allegation in that application not only that he was a foreign agent but he was involved in the commission of a crime.
CUOMO: That is not true.
MUKASEY: Yes, it is.
CUOMO: To get a FISA application, you need to find probable cause he may be a foreign agent, not that he committed a crime and you need never charge him.
MUKASEY: No, for an American citizen, which Carter Page was, you need a showing that he was involved in the commission of a crime.
CUOMO: I do not — are you sure that that’s the standard?
MUKASEY: Yes, I am.
CUOMO: Because I have somebody from the DOJ who was involved in that who says it’s not the standard. You have to show that he had probable cause or you had probable cause he was a foreign agent.
MUKASEY: Chris, I will send you the statute by email.
CUOMO: It has to check both boxes?
MUKASEY: Yes. For an American citizen.
CUOMO: For an American citizen.
MUKASEY: Not for a foreigner.
CUOMO: If it’s an American citizen you need to check both boxes.
CUOMO: Good, let me know. Mike Mukasey, I always appreciate you making the case.
MUKASEY: Good to be here.
Give Cuomo some credit: Mukasey has told him on other occasions that he doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about, and Cuomo still brings him on as a guest. However, Mukasey wasn’t “making the case.” He was correctly stating the law, and CNN continues to allow Cuomo, who seems like a nice guy but just isn’t very bright, to misinform its viewers.
3. Publishing old news as new news is fake news. The New York Times was eliciting orgasms with its report on President Trump’s massive business failures and $1.17 billion loss between 1985 and 1994. When I pointed out to some mid-climaxing Facebook friends that this was just more re-litigating of the election, and completely irrelevant to President Trump, he responded, (I’m paraphrasing) “No! It proves he was lying when he claimed to be a competent businessman who would run the nation like a successful business!”
The Washington Examiner correctly pointed out yesterday, the story has been told before, by Trump himself, on NBC’s “The Apprentice.”:
Here’s a side by side of what Trump said in the monologue in 2004 with what the Times report said 15 years later.
Trump, 2004: “It wasn’t always so easy. About 13 years ago, I was seriously in trouble. I was billions of dollars in debt.” Times, 2019: “The numbers show that in 1985, Mr. Trump reported losses of $46.1 million from his core businesses — largely casinos, hotels and retail space in apartment buildings. They continued to lose money every year, totaling $1.17 billion in losses for the decade.”
Trump, 2004: “But I fought back and I won big league. I used my brain. I used my negotiating skills. And I worked it all out.” Times, 2019: “Mr. Trump’s 2005 returns … showed that by then he had significant sources of income and was paying taxes.”
Trump, 2004: “Now my company’s bigger than it ever was, stronger than it ever was and I’m having more fun than I ever had. I’ve mastered the art of the deal and I’ve turned the name Trump into the highest quality brand.” Times, 2019: “Mr. Trump built a business licensing his name, became a television celebrity and ran for the White House by branding himself a self-made billionaire.
Summary: Trump never hid his decade long disaster. The New York Times didn’t bother to track down this story because it never thought Trump could win, but now is trying to present it as a “scoop” as part of the “resistance” effort to undermine the Presidents’ respect and support so Democrats can escape the consequences of their ongoing harassment.