Donelson Files is a podcast that features politics, culture and entertainment. The webpage will include writers from right to left, discussing politics, sports, entertainment, culture and include photos, art and poetry.
The recent New York Times article casting doubt on the
Steele Dossier is another Mea Culpa that shows what I have been saying for two
years. The Media has missed the big
story and I will add, purposely refuse investigate the real story.
If the Dossier is false, then the warrants behind allowing
the FBI to spy on the Trump campaign was based on fake information. A bigger question, did FBI agents commit
perjury dealing with the warrants?
What Mueller report showed, there was no collusion, period
but the real question is when did the investigators figure this out and what
about the information used to gain warrants, did the FBI abuse their
authority?
Will the media actually investigate or simply ignore the big
story? Our civil liberties depend upon
it, maybe the Media might realize what is at stake is bigger than their hatred
for Trump.
Well, it took them a while to get there but the NY Times has finally taken notice that the Steele dossier appears to contain a lot of false and unverifiable garbage:
The 35-page dossier, spiced up with tales of prostitutes and spies, sketched out a hair-raising story more than two years ago. Russian intelligence had used bribery and blackmail to try to turn Donald J. Trump into a source and ally, it said, and the Kremlin was running some Trump campaign aides practically as agents.
But the release on Thursday of the report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, underscored what had grown clearer for months — that while many Trump aides had welcomed contacts with the Russians, some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false, and others were impossible to prove. Mr. Mueller’s report contained over a dozen passing references to the document’s claims but no overall assessment of why so much did not check out…
Interviews with people familiar with Mr. Steele’s work on the dossier and the F.B.I.’s scramble to vet its claims suggest that misgivings about its reliability arose not long after the document became public — and a preoccupation of Trump opponents — in early 2017. Mr. Steele has made clear to associates that he always considered the dossier to be raw intelligence — not established facts, but a starting point for further investigation.
Hold on a minute. If Steele considered the dossier raw intelligence and merely cause for further investigation, why was he talking to multiple news outlets about the dossier prior to the election? He gave quotes to Mother Jones about it in October of 2016. That doesn’t sound like someone who is handling raw intelligence. It sounds like someone helping to dump oppo prior to the election.
If the FBI knew this might be a bunch of hearsay by early 2017, why did they brief the president and thereby provide the news hook needed for CNN to publish the allegations (and Buzzfeed to publish the dossier)? Shouldn’t they have been downplaying this rather than elevating it?
Another possibility — one that Mr. Steele has not ruled out — could be Russian disinformation. That would mean that in addition to carrying out an effective attack on the Clinton campaign, Russian spymasters hedged their bets and placed a few land mines under Mr. Trump’s presidency as well.
Oleg D. Kalugin, a former K.G.B. general who now lives outside Washington, saw that as plausible. “Russia has huge experience in spreading false information,” he said…
Last year, in a deposition in a lawsuit filed against Buzzfeed, Mr. Steele emphasized that his reports consisted of unverified intelligence. Asked whether he took into account that some claims might be Russian fabrications, he replied, “Yes.”
The whole premise of this investigation was that Russia may have compromised Trump or people close to him. But what if the truth turns out to be that Russia compromised the dossier? This shouldn’t be shrugged off as a passing thought experiment. The NY Times is reporting that Steele thinks it’s possible his dossier contained disinformation and a former KGB general says he may be right.
Think about what the claims in the dossier have generated? Much of the past two years of anger and public outrage, the desire to eliminate the electoral college, claims Trump isn’t a legitimate president, etc, etc.—it may all be based on Russian lies. If that’s the case then the bulk of the damage Russia did to our system wasn’t though a few million dollars spent on Facebook and Twitter, it was through billions of dollars in earned media on CNN, MSNBC, and Buzzfeed (among many others). Let that sink in a moment.
What if Mark Zuckerberg isn’t the big problem he’s been made out to be for the past two years? And what if Jeff Zucker and Rachel Maddow are?
From New York Times, maybe the Steele Dossier may not be real after all. translation, “We been lying for two years on this issue, what else is new?”
“The 35-page dossier, spiced up with tales of prostitutes and spies, sketched out a hair-raising story more than two years ago. Russian intelligence had used bribery and blackmail to try to turn Donald J. Trump into a source and ally, it said, and the Kremlin was running some Trump campaign aides practically as agents…
“Interviews with people familiar with Mr. Steele’s work on the dossier and the F.B.I.’s scramble to vet its claims suggest that misgivings about its reliability arose not long after the document became public — and a preoccupation of Trump opponents — in early 2017. Mr. Steele has made clear to associates that he always considered the dossier to be raw intelligence — not established facts, but a starting point for further investigation.”
The Media failed in its basic duty, tell the truth.
My first experience with a union came when I represented the newsroom’s intention to hold a vote for a union to the publisher of a national weekly newspaper. I had a summer job there after my first year as a high school teacher. Later, as a training developer, I wrote, produced, and oversaw one of the largest industrial training programs in history for the Railway Labor Executives’ Association (a council of all major rail union presidents). I also executed major projects for the Federal Railroad Administration, AMTRAK, Conrail, and others. Still later, I worked very closely with the National Education Association, the professional teachers’ union in a major joint venture, a national research project, and addresses to two national conventions. The reason I mention all this background is to establish my position as an ardent supporter of the labor movement. My comments come from a position of firm commitment to the need for workers to take their place at any table which determines their welfare. The occasion of this attention to the labor movement is this week’s Supreme Court decision in Janus versus AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees). Not only do I agree with the decision, I also think it is good for the unions. On the first count, I agree that “freedom of assembly” also means freedom to say “no”. Otherwise, it is not free. It is good for the unions because it puts them back in the business of listening to the rank and file – a habit which has gotten lost when the leadership was able to take for granted nearly unlimited financial support. The leaders have gotten into the alternative habit of spending their time, talent and money on their chosen political adventures. The SCOTUS decision reasserts the proper priorities for all unions, including the trade unions and all private sector unions. The challenge for the private sector unions is this: You have a problem — it is called “relevance”. Union membership has declined by 50% since 1983 when counting began. The proportion of workers who belong to unions in 2016 is 10% compared to 20% in 1983. And the demographic group with the most workers is the baby boomers, born between 1946 and 1965. Young union members are even more scarce. Why the decline? Lack of a cause? Not hardly. Between 1971 (when Nixon left the gold standard) and 2018, average worker income has hardly moved (until very recently) but purchasing power decreased by 506%! Who has been fighting for the American worker for the past 50 years? When the double trouble of inflation and globalization decimated the American working class, who was there to stand up for the American worker? The answer is, NOBODY! It took a billionaire businessman President to even begin to reverse these trends. So, what can Labor do?1. First, decouple Labor from the Democratic Party. The Democrats haven’t helped us any more than the Republicans. Labor’s support should go to the people who are committed not only to talking but to doing the things that will save the working class, restore their purchasing power, and get the government off their backs. What concrete policies will accomplish these results? Here are some ideas:
2 Share the wealth!! In order to keep up with inflation, worker income has to keep pace with productivity. What does that mean? “Productivity” is measured by how much it costs to deliver a product or service. Human labor is a major component of the cost of production. Therefore, an increase in productivity includes a decrease in the cost of the labor it requires. So, what happens? Profits go up. But who implements that improvement in profits? The people who produce it. So how come only the owners and inventors get all the profits? They shouldn’t! Who is going to stop them-who is going to stand up to them and make them surrender a fair share of these profits to the workers? LABOR! Who else knows how to do this? Who else has a 150 years of experience and influence and public presence? Only LABOR!
3. Change the laws! Profit-sharing should be easy, not hard. The taxes, regulations,and inheritance rules which encumber ESOPs and other profit-sharing programs make it very difficult to reward workers with stock, options, even cash. It is too easy for the opposition to refuse. That has to change.
4. Worker training. Everybody is expected to go to college on the promise for better earnings. Just over 30% of Americans have bachelor’s degrees and 12% have post-graduate training. But what about the other 70%? What about the trades? Where are the vocational/technical schools that we used to have? Where are the union apprentice programs? Why are the worker training programs in companies always to the first to be cut on a downturn? Who is looking out for the 70%? Nobody! (Tax policies can have a role here.)
5. Encourage families! America’s population is aging and not reproducing itself. One of the reasons for this seems to be the lowering of the middle-class standard of living which has deteriorated so sharply in the past two generations, causing fewer marriages, later marriages, smaller families, more abortions, and more fatherless households. It has emasculated two generations of American working men who can’t support their families. One result has been a demand for government laws and programs which make these conditions more bearable. But the weight of human history is on the side of family formation and sustenance. Strong families are one of the pillars of prosperity. Government has to become family-friendly again.
6. Shark Tank! Another means of uplifting the middle class is entrepreneurship. The popular television show has shown what can be done when entrepreneurs are encouraged and capitalized. Local shark tanks can make all our lives more enjoyable.Just a few ideas to help us grow into our potential.
Don’t forget to follow the Dr. Larry Show following the Donelson Files
My first experience of a union came early. I had finished my first year as a high school teacher and was hired for the summer by a national weekly newspaper as a proof reader. My status in the organization was quickly determined by my assignment to the night shift.
That timing worked out well for me since I was also back in college for some courses required to get my Colorado teaching certificate. Things were going well, and I was promoted after the first month to an exempt (salaried) position as copy editor. This put me in the company of the editors and reporters, which was an exciting development for a young guy.
One day, a senior editor dropped by my desk and quietly invited me to an after-hours “party” at his house. Flattered, I quickly agreed. It turned out that the “party” was actually a meeting of the entire newsroom for the purpose of activating a just granted Department of Labor mandate to management to arrange for a vote on whether or not to join a union. The right to have the vote on company time was not in dispute. The problem was, who was going to approach the publisher with the news that the government had approved the application?
We were all leery of our mercurial publisher. It was assumed by all that, if the vote failed, the identifiable leaders of the union initiative would be out on the street forthwith. Even if it didn’t fail, those same leaders would undoubtedly be faced with righteous wrath. Of course, none of this had anything to do with me.
WRONG! All of a sudden, my gracious host turned to me and said, “Son, we’d like you to carry the message to Mr. (Publisher). You have the least to lose – after all, you’ll be leaving soon anyway to go back to another career. Plus you have no history of clashing with him and he likes you. And finally, you won’t be joining the union anyway, so he has minimum leverage on you.”
There may have been somebody somewhere in Colorado more surprised than I was at that moment, but I doubt it! What ensued was a sort of roundtable in which each person there gave me his (no women) version of why I should talk to the Big Chief, what I should say, why a union was long overdue, and why I was the right representative. I probably should have walked out some time during this display. Instead, I felt sorry for these poor guys. They had gotten themselves into a bad situation and they didn’t have the guts to fix it. Plus, they were right about my unique position. So, I finally agreed.
I had the meeting. When I asked to see Mr. Publisher, he apparently thought I wanted fatherly advice. At any rate, he invited me to lunch at his club. I could see trouble ahead, but I couldn’t turn him down, standing in the corridor outside the newsroom. That was quite a meeting! But, beet red face notwithstanding, he agreed. The vote was held. The union got only two votes against. A week later, I left to get married – leaving behind a lot of hearty thanks and goodbyes – and one serious enemy
Don’t forget to listen to the Dr. Larry Show after the Donelson Files Wednesday.
Donelson Files will review the Mueller Files but also we need to reviewe other documents as well. My own observations is simple, the Mueller report could not make the case that Trump is not guilty of collusion nor did he obstruct justice. Anyone who says different is wrong, period.et
1. This report was written by Democrat partisan which was
essentially the Mueller team with the idea of making Trump look bad, they
succeeded in parts of the report. You can’t view this report in isolation but
in combination with others.
2. There are other reports that broaden the whole case
includes FISA reports on Obama abuses of the Courts, Nunes report, the
Graham/Grassly report and the Inspector General report on the Clinton
investigation dealing with Email.
3. The latter investigation shows Comey to be incompetent Director whose FBI tanked the Clinton EMAIL investigation. One agent in one section told her fellow FBI agent that when questioning HRC, remember she will be President. Veil threat not to go hard or lose your job later.
4. Horowitz who did this report and the
report on Andrew McCabe who proved to be a liar and fired for it, is still
looking into FBI abuses. The investigators are being investigated and as IG
report on Clinton showed, FBI had serious issues that need to be addressed.
5. Many of the agents who investigated Clinton, were part
of the initial Trump collusion and they were already bias against Trump and
viewed the FBI collusion investigation as their insurance policies against
Trump.
6.. As other reports showed, The Steele Dossier was used
to grant warrants even thought FISA courts may not have been informed of the
source of the evidence namely paid for a political Party. There appears to be
abuses of the FISA courts to gain warrants
7. There are plenty of sources for this including FISA Court own reports, Nunes and Graham/Grassley report.
8. Mueller report exonerated Trump on Collusion, case closed. Barr own view of obstruction is correct as Trump never stopped the investigation. It is hard to be guilty of obstructing justice of a crime never committed. There will be more on the Donelson Files Tuesday
One of the biggest loser in the Mueller Report is the
mainstream Media as they fail to correctly report the biggest story and even
now, they are attempting to portray the Report as a vindication of their
reporting as oppose the biggest media screw up it is.
1. With the exception of Fox News, most of the mainstream
reported every rumor only to be exposed as partisan hacks as oppose to
reputable journalists. View them as Democratic Operatives with byline and it
all becomes self-explanatory.
2. The best reporting came from Sara Carter, John Solomon
of the Hill, and Federalist among others who exist outside much of the
mainstream. Sean Hannity was far more accurate than his counterpart, Rachel
Maddow, who morphed into conspiracy nutcase before our eyes.
3. Last year on the Donelson Files, it was noted that
Obama got twice as many positive story than negative stories according to Pew
Research and NPR. For every 12 negatives stories, Trump only received one
positive story. Obama positive stories were 8 times greater than Trump.
4. No matter how you cut it, this is beyond biased but
much of the media has simply taken sides. Period. And unless they start looking
at this story from different view, they will continue to cover up for Democrats
and simply give you Democrat talking point.
5. New York Times to AP, Reuters new services and the Washington Post can not be trusted! Nor can CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and NBC can be trusted.
6. Democracy dies in darkness when the Media simply work
for one political Party and when the Democrats regain the Presidency, the Media
will be nothing more than State Media.
7. Last week, the New York Times using data from Left wing sources detailed that most Americans got a tax cuts but noted the polls showed the opposite. Mainly because the mainstream media repeated Democrats talking points about the Trump tax policies. The Media lied about this for the past year.
8. There are other issues that the Media often get wrong since they merely becoming mouth pieces for one Party. The public loses in the long run but Media can redeems themselves by simply investigating Possible FBI abuses of the FISA to gain warrants spying on political foes. Will they or will they double down on what they already know to be false?
Thoughts from a hipster coffee shop… by Alyssa Ahlgren
My generation is becoming the largest voting bloc in the country. We have an opportunity to continueto propel us forward with the gifts capitalism and democracy has given us. The other option is that we can fall into the trap of entitlement and relapse into restrictive socialist destitution. The choice doesn’t seem too hard, does it?By Alyssa Ahlgren This piece is worth reading . https://alphanewsmn.com/thoughts-from-a-hipster-coffee-shop/
Some additional thoughts she share, ” I’m sitting in a small coffee shop near Nokomis trying to think of what to write about. I scroll through my newsfeed on my phone looking at the latest headlines of Democratic candidates calling for policies to “fix” the so-called injustices of capitalism. I put my phone down and continue to look around. I see people talking freely, working on their MacBook’s, ordering food they get in an instant, seeing cars go by outside, and it dawned on me. We live in the most privileged time in the most prosperous nation and we’ve become completely blind to it. Vehicles, food, technology, freedom to associate with whom we choose. These things are so ingrained in our American way of life we don’t give them a second thought. We are so well off here in the United States that our poverty line begins 31 times above the global average. Thirty. One. Times. Virtually no one in the United States is considered poor by global standards. Yet, in a time where we can order a product off Amazon with one click and have it at our doorstep the next day, we are unappreciative, unsatisfied, and ungrateful. “
Let me lay down some universal truths really quick. The United States of America has lifted more people out of abject poverty, spread more freedom and democracy, and has created more innovation in technology and medicine than any other nation in human history. Not only that but our citizenry continually breaks world records with charitable donations, the rags to riches story is not only possible in America but not uncommon, we have the strongest purchasing power on earth, and we encompass 25% of the world’s GDP. The list goes on. However, these universal truths don’t matter. We are told that income inequality is an existential crisis (even though this is not an indicator of prosperity, some of the poorest countries in the world have low-income inequality), we are told that we are oppressed by capitalism (even though it’s brought about more freedom and wealth to the most people than any other system in world history), we are told that the only way we will acquire the benefits of true prosperity is through socialism and centralization of federal power (even though history has proven time and again this only brings tyranny and suffering).
The Donelson Files 