Opinion| Democrats are consistent at one thing.
They’re consistently hypocritical.
This from the Clinton Apologist aka as the New York Times editorial page:
October 17, 2016:
“Top Republicans must reject the ridiculous notion that a national election can be ‘rigged’ ”
Then in mid-December 2016:
“[President-elect] Trump should be leading the call for a thorough investigation, since it would be the only way to remove this darkening cloud from his presidency.
Failing to resolve the questions about Russia would feed the suspicion among millions of Americans that a dominant theme of his candidacy turned out to be true.”
Uh, huh.
Barely a month after the Donald Trump was elected, you can see the origins of the Democrats’ gameplan for the entirety of the Trump presidency straight from the party’s primary propaganda arm, the New York Times.
All the News the State sees Fit to Print – All the Opinion You’re Allowed to Read.
Not a word of condemnation that I saw from the Times during the campaign seeking answers to the Democrat candidate’s use of a secret server to allegedly transfer top secret and special access programs to foreign states.
Nor about Uranium One, Skolkovo, or the Clinton Foundation that is rumored to have taken in billions that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared to be in coordination with.
How can the Times, that demanded an investigation into Donald Trump, not be demanding a full investigation into his opponent for this apparent pay-to-play scheme where evidence suggests influence was sold to foreign governments.
Nothing from the New York Times, the Washington Post, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, et al, except defensive posturing or silence.
All of these apparently state-controlled mainstream propaganda outlets have been equally opaque about the man who is now leading the impeachment phase of the Democrats’ war on our Constitutional republic, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).
Nadler serves as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
It now appears that Nadler has his own questionable ties to Russians. Considering that his campaign has hired a consultant who is doing lobbying work for a Russian propagandist, it would appear that Nadler should be the one to be a target of an investigation.
Still, not a peep from the New York Times, nor from the Washington Post or any other state-owned media source still referred to as the mainstream media, about this.
Lachlan Markay writes about corruption, finance and influence-peddling in the nation’s capitol for the Daily Beast. Thursday he explored Nadler’s own ties to Russia:
“As the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee goes all out in his investigation of President Donald Trump’s ties to Russian interests, one of his campaign consultants is working on behalf of a prominent employee of Russia’s foreign-propaganda apparatus.”
The campaign consultant working for Nadler is Ezra Friedlander who also has a new client – the wife of Kirill Vyshinsky. Vyshinsky manages Russian state news media outlet. Novosti is the Russian Intelligence Agency’s Ukrainian arm.
Ukrainian authorities have accused Vyshinsky of fomenting support for the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014.
Why would Nadler, who is desperately trying to find some way to connect Donald Trump to Russia (because it is such a nefarious state), allow himself to be tied in any way to someone who so openly plotted in support of… Russia?
Keep in mind that the U.S. strenuously opposed the Russian annexation of Crimea.
According to Markay, Vyshinsky is sitting in a Ukrainian jail facing treason charges as a result of information garnered during a raid of RIA Novosti offices in Kiev.
There’s also this bit of hypocrisy from Nadler who apparently accepts that Niedlander was simply defending the right of a journalist (Vyshinsky) to report what he sees.
Markay:
“Though he frames it as an issue of press freedom, the Ukrainian government isn’t the only one to accuse Russian media of acting as a propaganda arm of the Kremlin. The U.S. intelligence community also concluded that ostensibly independent Russian-owned broadcasters were integral parts of Moscow’s American disinformation campaign in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.”
While Friedlander held other meetings on the Hill around the same time as his lobbying campaign on behalf of Vyshinsky, he contends he never lobbied on behalf of Vyshinsky.
To believe that would be the equivalent of believing that Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch only discussed Bill’s grandchild and his golf game for an hour on the tarmac, because that’s what people with busy schedules do.
I’m old enough to remember when left-wing Dems were referred to as pinkos for their defense of the Soviet Union and their embrace of Marxism. As far as I can see the only thing that has changed is… nothing!
