With growing frequency the newest member of the supposed journalistic political elite, The Bulwark, is becoming a pure source of comedy. The professional never-Trumpers claim to be the final vestige of conservatism as they routine attack conservatives and never anyone from the left — all while being fully funded by a Silicon Valley liberal.
Taking a break from touting serial tweet-deleter Molly Jong-Fast, the site had a lengthy column by Gabe Shoenfeld that was taking apart a new book from Victor Davis Hanson, The Case For Trump.
With a title like that there was no way for the bullworkers to resist. (Provided here for reference, but really you would be fine in resisting the urge to click through.)
Sophistry in the Service of Evil: A review of 'The Case for Trump' by Victor Davis Hanson https://t.co/qQr7Iai9OC via @BulwarkOnline
— Charlie Sykes (@SykesCharlie) March 9, 2019
In one passage of his lengthy critique Shoenfeld addresses the issue of the “Deep State” as brought forward by Hanson. In doing so he attempts to rewrite the factual history.
Elaborating and amplifying a stock Trump talking point, Hanson maintains that it was not Trump’s but Hillary Clinton’s campaign that was tacitly colluding with Russia to manipulate the 2016 election. Trump, he insists, was actually “a victim of Russian collusion at the very time he was being accused of it.”
This is something that has actually been proven long ago. Hillary Clinton’s lawyers, and members of the DNC, were the ones who paid Fusion GPS to get information on Trump. This has been reported by famed GOP conspiracy websites like The Washington Post, as well as the conservative tin-hat brigade at The New York Times.
Thus, the investigation to find out IF Trump obtained oppo-research about Hillary from the Russians is based on Hillary’s definitively obtained oppo-research about Trump from the Russians.
Recommended
Shoenfeld next takes one of the favorite terms of late, “gaslighting”, to new levels.
As it happened, the sensational material in the dossier only came to public attention via Buzzfeed in January 2017, on the eve of Trump’s swearing in. If Clinton and high officials in the FBI were in cahoots to sabotage Trump, why did they not leak the dossier, already in their possession, to the media before the election when it could have done the Trump campaign serious damage? Unsurprisingly, this is a question that Hanson opts not to entertain.
Hanson did not need to entertain it, because it was a known fact by many. Just because someone did not anticipate your denial of something is not proof of an evasion.
In a nice dose of factual rebuttal to Shoenfeld’s delusions John Huber delivered the goods.
THE CLINTON FUNDED STEELE DOSSIER WASN’T USED IN THE MEDIA BEFORE THE ELECTION says @gabeschoenfeld
Except:
—The Weekly Standard
—New Yorker
—Yahoo News
—Mother Jones
—Slate
—NBC
—MSNBCAnd by the Clinton campaign:
—Press release “bombshells”
—Tweets read by millionsTHREAD
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) March 13, 2019
Then Huber, more than listing claims, provides the works.
OK, read and decide for yourself (1/2):
The Weekly Standard (July 24): https://t.co/cNzCkl6ZyA
New Yorker (Aug 3): https://t.co/cNzCkl6ZyA
(Both of these subtly use Steele/Fusion GPS reporting)
Yahoo (Sep 23): https://t.co/5x9ULPTW3h
(The source of this is Steele himself)
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) March 13, 2019
Read and decide for yourself (2/2):
Mother Jones (Oct 31): https://t.co/vSvaqcfbK1
(DIRECTLY QUOTES THE DOSSIER VERBATIM)
Slate (Oct 31): https://t.co/pmuduOPuWc
NBC (Oct 31): https://t.co/aZMTyxBXpi
(Indirectly references Steele’s allegations about Page and Manafort)
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) March 13, 2019
And there’s more.
Here’s are the Yahoo and Slate stories being hyped by MSNBC and Rachel Maddow, plus even more allegations (Nov 1): https://t.co/3I1c3KKkEN
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) March 13, 2019
The Yahoo article is of particular note. When the authorities went to the judge to obtain the FISA warrant a number of journalists’ reports were submitted with the Steele Dossier as corroborating evidence. Except those reporters had been leaked the Steele document for their reports. This means the officials effectively proved the dossier was accurate by using the dossier as evidence.
Now, recall Shoenfeld asking in a mocking tone why Clinton had not leaked this to the press to damage Trump? Hillary distributed an offical press release, citing the news report from Michael Isikoff — in September 2016.
Here is a Clinton campaign press release about the Yahoo News story, calling it a “bombshell” showing “chilling” ties between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin (Sep 23): https://t.co/TQfrArwk5Q
Apparently voters deserved “the facts BEFORE Election Day” @gabeschoenfeld? pic.twitter.com/bt015DScm2
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) March 13, 2019
The Isikoff piece, by the way, was one of those submitted as “proof” in order to secure the FISA warrant.
The main reason the entire dossier was never revealed before the election is the same reason we have not been granted any real proof of collusion today — the evidence cannot be verified. But that in no way means they did not try.
Just because those media leaks from the Clinton/Steele/Fusion operation didn’t work and @realDonaldTrump was elected POTUS anyway, doesn’t mean they didn’t happen
— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) March 13, 2019
Q: Why didn’t the Steele dossier appear prominently in places like the NYT to hurt DJT?
A: They couldn’t verify it!
“We heard about the back-channel (between) the Russians and Trump…we found no evidence it was true”
—@nytimes Exec Editor Dean Baquet https://t.co/BJz64xJVkU pic.twitter.com/K8rjNTLR7F— Undercover Huber (@JohnWHuber) March 13, 2019
It will always be amusing when those who cannot reconcile that their hatred for Trump did nothing to keep him out of Washington D.C. cannot accept reality as a result. Telling us that how they want things to be is actually the way they are will always provide amusement.
Keep up the defensive comedy, gang!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member