"We're not playing their game!"

Kurt Schlichter writes in Town Hall,

...When they are yelling that Donald Trump’s press conference was (Pearl Harbor + 9/11) x 1,000,000, forget about raising any legit grievances with Trump’s performance. We’re not playing their game.

Why bother with reason? It’s kind of hard to have a rational discussion with people screaming “traitor” and “treason,” especially when they have been screaming “traitor” and “treason” for the last 18 months and we’ve seen no traitoring or treasoning. But the facts don’t deter them. Trump’s clearly Putin’s puppet because he just pounded on NATO to carry its own ruck and increase defense spending to counter…wait for it…Russia. Apparently strengthening NATO is playing right into Putin’s cunning claws. And giving grief to the krauts for doing a gas pipeline deal with the Bear…that was horrible too, for some reason. Giving lethal aid to Ukraine, cruise missiling Russia’s pal Assad, and whacking 200 Russian mercs in Syria…none of that matters because none of it supports the official narrative. Trump’s actions are indisputably exponentially harsher on Russia than anything Obama did, but citing that evidence and those facts is now itself evidence of collusion.

...All this kind of babble does is annoy me and millions of other people who refuse to freak out at the behest of establishment hacks eager to regain their lost power.

...Any legit criticism of Trump’s policies is swamped by the insanity. But that’s part of the plan. They want people so outraged they can’t, or won’t, think. This is a cynical ploy to ramp things up to a fever pitch and panic the weakhearts. They seek to split the GOP between Trump supporters and the Flake Fredocon Faction of simpering sissies so they can retake power. The establishment was always going to dogpile Trump no matter what he did in Europe. That he gave them some ammo with what he concedes was loose talk followed by a walk-back only made their job easier. But the fix was already in.

Read more here.

Was there collusion between CNN's Candy Crowley and the White House?

Here is the tape in which Governor Romney and President Obama discuss Benghazi. Begin at about the 1:08 mark.



Neo-neocon writes,

this is the only time Crowley attempts to “fact-check” in real time (something I don’t think has ever been done by a moderator in a presidential debate). Why did she decide to do this?

Why did she wave the paper around at that point? Did she want people to believe she’d looked it up when she hadn’t?

Or if the answer to question #1 was that the paper was in fact a transcript, why would she have had this transcript with her? And did she even have time to look it up? How was she able to answer so quickly? If it was a transcript, why didn’t she find a quote and read it?

Jack Cashill wrote one month after the debate:

Obama did not throw the "act of terror" line away. He said it clearly and defiantly, as though he knew he could get away with it. Feigning outrage, Obama then told of how he manfully greeted the caskets as they arrived at Andrews Air Force Base and how he was offended at the very suggestion that anyone on his "team" would "play politics or mislead when we have lost four of our own."

Sensing an opening, Romney moved in for the kill over Crowley's protestations that he respond "quickly." Romney looked straight at Obama, raised his eyebrows quizzically, and asked, "You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror? It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you are saying."

Now back on his stool, Obama answered uncomfortably, "Please proceed. Please proceed, governor." Romney turned back to Crowley and said that he just wanted to get Obama's response on record. With the camera still on Romney, the TV audience heard Obama say off-camera, "Get the transcript."

The camera then moved to a wide-shot and showed Crowley waving a piece of paper. Several of my correspondents -- and, I am sure, many others -- believed that to be the transcript and wondered how Crowley just happened to have it.

"He did in fact, sir, call..." said Crowley hesitantly to Romney, "so let me call it an act of terror."

"Can you say that a little louder, Candy?" said a suddenly revived Obama while the Obama fans in the audience, Michelle included, cheered in violation of the rules.

To save whatever credibility it has, CNN needs to question Crowley regarding her role in this intervention. Why did she serve up Obama that "buck stop" question? Did he know it was coming? Did she wave the paper intentionally to give the illusion that she had the transcript in hand? And finally, how dare she add new information into a debate -- false information at that -- at so crucial a moment?

Please read more here and here.