Wednesday, January 22, 2020

Left & Right January 15, 2020

Publisher Mark Guerringue again sits in the left chair. We open with a question from the producer about what we think the long-term effect of the Soleimani killing will be.

It’s a good thing in my view. Soleimani was a bad guy, responsible for the deaths of more than 600 American soldiers through the use of Iranian IEDs against US forces in the region. His death opens a window into what Iranian media and western mainstream media have not shown — that he was an Iranian terrorist operative, that he trained and equipped Iranian proxy armies including Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi Rebels in Yemen and others in Syria to make war against Israel and the USA. The aftermath of his death shows also that many, if not most Iranian citizens do not support the theocratic regime in Iran.

Mark says the killing lacks a strategic objective in that Trump says he wants to withdraw Americans from the region but is ordering killings there and increasing the likelihood that we are going to have a war. He points out that wo months ago I defended Trump’s taking American troops away from the Turkey/Syria border, but now I support the Soleimani killing. The general was an Iranian government official. We got lucky the airliner was shot down because it reflected badly on the Iranian government and that seemed to prevent further escalation against us. Mark believes Trump lacks a strategy in the region and this action reflects that.

I compare killing Soleimani to killing al Baghdadi two months ago and Obama’s approval of killing Osama Bin Laden years in 2012. But Soleimani was an Iranian government official, Mark says. He was going into other countries in the region killing Americans, I said, so we should tolerate that because he was an Iranian government official? It’s a sliding scale, Mark said. There’s a reason Obama and Bush decided not to take him out, a good reason in Mark’s view.

I raise something publicized two years ago called “Operation Cassandra,” an FBI investigation into drugs and money laundering conducted by Hezbollah operatives working for Iran in the US in 2015. Involved were the Awan brothers who were also IT specialists employed by the Democratic National Committee. Although the FBI had 50 agents on the case, the Obama Administration blocked the investigation because it might interfere with efforts to reach an agreement with Iran for the Nuclear deal. Over $1 billion in laundered drug money went from the USA to Hezbollah and the Iranian Quds force under General Soleimani.

Also part of this drug scam was the stealing of intelligence from the computers of Democrats serving on congressional committees - including the Intelligence Committee — and sent to Iran by the Awan brothers. Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz ran interference for the Obama Administration and key congressional Democrats to cover it all up. The coverup continues as the DOJ and others are still hiding documents requested by Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A federal court hearing was being conducted as our show was being taped because a federal judge wanted to know why the FOIA requests were being blocked.

On the last show, Mark requested that I investigate the California law about consent from two parties when conversations are being recorded. I did and discovered Mark is right about the California law but there are exceptions as I though then: if one party believes a crime is being committed, and if the recording is in a public place. 

I bring up another surreptitiously-recorded tape released the day before the show of a Bernie Sanders Campaign employee in Iowa saying Milwaukee would burn if Bernie doesn’t get the nomination there this summer. If Trump wins again in November, cities would burn. The employee, Kyle Jurek, also said gulags would be opened for Trump supporters, and other outrageous things. The networks ignored it last night (Tuesday, January 14) and so did Brett Baier on Fox.

Then I bring up a lawsuit recently settled between the Covington Catholic boy wearing a MAGA hat who was trashed after the Pro-Life march last year in Washington, DC and CNN, who was sued. CNN settled rather than go to court, but we don’t know yet the details of the settlement. Several other lawsuits against the Washington Post, reporters from other networks, Elizabeth Warren, and others are still pending.

Mark hadn’t heard of these developments and calls them “hobby horse” cases that fit my agenda.

The second question from the producer asks us if we support legislation granting religious exemptions to parents about having their children immunized. Mark says we have to balance individual rights with the public good. I agree with that and didn’t have much more to offer beyond it.

Mark asks which Democrat candidates I like and I say none of them. If I had to choose which I disliked least it would Amy Klobuchar. Mark says she’s practical in a midwest sort of way and very smart.

Mark said he had Governor Weld in (to a Sun Editorial Board interview) who is running against Trump, and Weld said someone has to do something about the deficit. He said we have to worry about AI (Artificial Intelligence) and 800,000 trucker will be out of work, which is what Andrew Yang said. He said Bernie is coming in Sunday (January 19) and Mark would ask him about those issues.

I said I would ask Bernie about Kyle Jurek but Mark isn’t inviting me to interview presidential candidates anymore because I asked a tough question of Hillary four years ago. Mark said it was a disrespectful question and it made the women in the room (on the editorial board) uncomfortable and I wouldn’t have asked a question like that of a man. He said I had a unique opportunity in life to talk to a Secretary of State and former first lady and I ask a disrespectful question. I tell him George Stephanopoulos asked Hillary the same question a week or two before our interview and it was all right for him, a former Clinton aide, to ask it but it’s a gotcha question when I do?

“It was disrespectful,” said Mark.

“I see. Was it disrespectful for Stephanopoulos to ask it?”

“I’m the one who controls the editorial board and guess what? I’m not inviting you back.”

You aren’t, I know, because I asked a tough question,” I said.

We went back and forth several more time and I said, “Okay, we disagree.”

“We do, and I get to not invite you. That’s the great part,” Mark said.

“Right. You don’t want to invite me and that’s fine, because I’m too tough on the women.”

Then Mark brought up Andrew Yang and how well he’s doing. I question his idea of giving $1000 to everyone.

As time is running out I thank him for appearing on the show and point out that we see things quite differently but that’s good for viewers.

 Mark says, “Well, thanks for having me back — and you can ban me from your show.”

“I wouldn’t do that to you,” I say. “I mean, you do it to me, but that doesn’t mean I’m gonna do it to you.”


Brian said...

The powers that be demanding a trial with no witnesses or evidence seems like something you would see out of Russia or North Korea. The Supreme Orange Dictator does not need to defend himself, he simply needs to slander his opposition.

To see the clown's lawyers outright lying in the Senate about easily verifiable facts, such as Republicans not being allowed into the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, is astoundingly shameful.

Kafir said...

“Kool-Aid, Kool-Aid tastes great, wish I had some, can’t wait.”

Brian said...

It appears comrade Kafir is fine with the idea of trials being held in America without witnesses or evidence and the jurors have already determined the verdict before the trial starts. It appears Kafir is also fine with the defense making outright lies. Anything to protect the Supreme Leader, right? Keep chugging the Russian tea, or whatever it is that has you whacked out in such an un-American style.

Brian said...

Trump has made it clear that he would like to be exonerated. What is the best and most obvious way to do that? A trial! Evidence and witnesses that show he is innocent. Let the other side make their best case and then, if possible, tear them to shreds. Show the country how their evidence does not stand up. It is what an innocent man would do. Hiding evidence, not allowing witnesses, and name calling is the exact opposite.

CaptDMO said...

Meh, I'll have to agree with the esteemed editor that it's his monkeys, and his circus, and his forum, in barring you from attendance to "special" events, due to perception of (any reason he deems fit).
Of course, although I MAY have recognized a certain consistent pattern in the "letters to the editor" that are published by The Sun , I have no idea what else MAY have been submitted.
No matter, as long as the comics, crossword, SudoKu, Jumble, and classified ads (my main source to extrapolate local economic/sociological indicators) are just as freely available as the rest of the paper.

Brian said...

It is no surprise that nobody is even trying to defend the shameful behavior happening in the Senate. Fox News just reported a poll in which 80% support calling witnesses and hearing new evidence. The majority of the country thinks Trump should be removed from office. After hearing the incredibly damning, and uncontested evidence given in yesterday's hearings these numbers will only rise. The Republicans are making fools of themselves and a mockery of our government.

Steve said...

Schiff had an interesting point. He said if T was being the responsible steward of our tax dollars by withholding aid to Ukraine until the eradication of corruption in “third most corrupt nation on earth,” as he is claiming, after the fact of course, then why wasn’t he proudly declaring that to us? Why did he wait until after the whistleblower complaint? Moreover, why did he go out of his way to hide it? He had the call records sequestered away in a server designed to store only the most secret national security information and communication. Hiding the call records from all scrutiny implies guilt. It implies the understanding and awareness that his “perfect call” was unethical, maybe illegal and maybe impeachable. He’s blocked the release of all documents and all witness testimony, even the fact witnesses that Republicans claimed was a weakness in the Democrat’s House case. If Republicans wanted Democrats to produce fact witnesses for their House impeachment inquiry, they should’ve loudly petitioned the President to allow it. Surely, there must be some documentation somewhere within the WH that supports Trump’s position. Surely, there must be at least one individual who will testify under oath to the legitimacy of Trump’s position. You don’t block the testimony of people who can exonerate you. You do, however, block the testimony of those who will have to lie under oath to exonerate you or plead the fifth to keep from implicating themselves.

Brian said...

There have been 15 previous impeachment trials in the Senate, including two involving presidents, and ALL of them have allowed witnesses. There is absolutely no excuse for not having them other than conducting a blatant cover-up.

Fitting that the trial of Harvey Weinstein is going on at the same time. They are both very similar men who abused their powers in grotesque and egotistical ways. Imagine the outrage if the jurors in the Weinstein trial said how they would vote before the trial started and read or fell asleep during the hearings.

Brian said...

I don't think there would be the same deafening silence around here were it Hillary or Obama being impeached and a Democratic Senate outrageously refusing to allow witnesses and to blatantly sweep the whole thing under the rug. Oh, no! It would be righteous screams of "Deep State" and "Dictator" and "Unconstitutional".....and rightly so.

It must be agonizing to have to keep silent against such obvious wrongdoing, all for the petty reason of "saving face" from having to concede anything to your hated liberals. Putting your pride before your country.

Steve said...

I agree, Brian. If Trump got elected as Democrat and had a Republican House, there would have been an impeachment vote after the Mueller Report, and if that didn't result in his removal from office, there would have been another impeachment vote after the Ukraine scandal.