Trey Gowdy Fox News Spygate

I am going to write more about this.  This is just a placeholder.

 

REP. TREY GOWDY, R—S.C., CHAIRMAN, HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: I think there are two things important to understand. Number one, the source of President Trump’s frustration. Brennan say he should be in the dustbin of history. Comey said impeachment is too good of a remedy. Clapper doesn’t like him, Loretta Lynch, said call it a matter, not an investigation.

Schiff said he had evidence of collusion before we even began the investigation, and 60 Democrats have voted to impeach him before Bob Mueller has come up with a single solitary finding. That’s what’s got him frustrated.

What should have him hearten is the fact that Chris Wray, Rod Rosenstein, and all the senior folks at DOJ now were all Trump appointees. So, here is what’s fair to ask, what did the FBI do? When did they do it? What was the factual predicate upon which they took whatever actions they took and against whom were they directed?

But remember, Martha, it was President Trump, himself who said, number one, “I didn’t collude with the Russia but if anyone connected with my campaign did, I want the FBI to find that out.” It looks to me like the FBI was doing what President Trump said I want you to do, find it out. He is not the target. So, when Schiff and others don’t make that clear, they’re doing the disservice to our fellow citizens. He is not the target.

MACCALLUM: But this raises the question that the president raised in this — in this one of those tweets, there were a lot of them. In which we talked about quite a bit here last week, is if that were the case, why didn’t they give him a little briefing?

So, here is what we found out. You know, we do have somebody who asked some questions of George Papadopoulos. We do have somebody who’s asked questions of Carter Page. Here’s what you need to know.

GOWDY: I think, defensive briefings are done a lot. And why the Comey FBI didn’t do it? I don’t know, but Chris Wray and Rod Rosenstein have at least made it clear to us, Donald Trump was never the target of the investigation. He is not the current target of the investigation. Now, keep in mind that can all change depending on what a witness says.

But as of now, I think Chris Wray and Rod Rosenstein are stunned whenever people think Trump is the target of their investigation. I’ll leave it up to them how to brief the president, or how to brief his lawyers.

MACCALLUM: Was that point of view that you’re talking about right now, was that strengthened when you went into this briefing last week?

GOWDY: Yes, I am — I am even more convinced that the FBI did exactly what my fellow citizens would want them to do when they got the information they got. And that it has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

MACCALLUM: All right. So, given the things that were over here on your right hand, all the frustrations, do you think it’s problematic the way the president has — is tweeting about this all the time? Because he feels like he needs to get — he needs to vent. He’s got to get his message out there. Is it legally problematic in your mind what he is doing?

GOWDY: I think any time you create prior statements, you give Mueller or other folks a chance to question you on them and ask what was your factual basis, why did you say that? The president should have access to the best legal minds in the country. And I think he should take advantage of those. And he has got some really good communicators that are on his staff and at his — at his call. If I were his lawyer, and I never will be, I would tell him to rely on his lawyers and his comes folks.

MACCALLUM: All right, here is one of them, Rudy Giuliani, speaking with Bill Hemmer over the holiday weekend. Watch this.

BILL HEMMER, FOX NEWS CO-ANCHOR: What’s wrong with the government trying to figure out what Russia was up to?

RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY TO PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Nothing wrong with the government doing that. Everything wrong with the government spying on a candidate of the opposition party, that’s a Watergate, a spy gate. I mean, and without any warning to him. And now, to compound that, to make it into a criminal investigation bill? That’s why this is a rigged investigation.

GOWDY: There are two things wrong with what the former U.S. attorney said. Number one, no one knows whether this is a criminal investigation. Mueller was told to do a counterintelligence investigation into what Russia did. And number two, President Trump himself in the Comey memos said if anyone connected with my campaign was working with Russia, I want you to investigate it.

And it sounds to me like that is exactly what the FBI did, I think when the president finds out what happened, he is going to be not just fine, he’s going to be glad that we have an FBI that took seriously what they heard. He was never the target, Russia is the target.

MACCALLUM: So, it sounds to me as if you would advise him that there’s no problem with him sitting down with Robert Muller.

GOWDY: Oh, absolutely no. I have always said, I think you want to sit down with Bob Mueller. You’ve told us publicly there was no collusion, you’ve told us publicly there was no obstruction. Say in private what you’ve said publicly, limit the scope to exactly what the — what the Mueller memo is, but if he were my client and I’d say if you’ve done nothing wrong, then you need to sit down and tell Mueller what you know.

MACCALLUM: you know, we had — there was one judge who said that the scope was all over the place. Do you feel comfortable with the scope of this investigation, and do you feel like your committee has been shared with to the extent that, that exists, that the scope exists?

GOWDY: I’m not sure what the scope of the Mueller probe is. But I know this, Rosenstein is the one who created the memo.

MACCALLUM: Right.

GOWDY: It’s not Bob Mueller’s fault.

MACCALLUM: Have you ever seen that memo?

GOWDY: I have — I have. I’ve seen the memo that you’ve seen also. The other memo some of my colleagues want to see is a more narrow admission.

MACCALLUM: I want to basically say, investigate Russia and all — anything related to it.

GOWDY: And as a frontal way line at the end, and of course, if there’s any criminality look at that to me. We run towards the criminality, but I would think everyone would want to know what Russia did. So, I mean, with whom if anyone is the second part? The first question is what did Russia do?

MACCALLUM: All right, we’ll see. Trey, thank you very much.

Brian Kemp Provides More Evidence Conservatives Cannot Govern Effectively

Brian Kemp provides more evidence Conservatives cannot govern.

Apparently Secretary of State Brian Kemp is attacking another Conservative group called Citizens for Georgia’s Furture. Conservatives have to attack everyone.  They trust no one.  No wonder our government is dysfunctional.  It is, not surprisingly, being run by Conservatives.

The latest evidence is a report from Greg Bluestein, AJC Political Insider, that Kemp assailed  “secret donors and shady tactics” from Citizens for Georgia’s Future in a speech at the Cobb County GOP over the weekend.  Kemp was upset that Citizens for Georgia’s Future said they ” could” launch ads to try to influence the race for the No. 2 spot in the May 22 primary.

Kemp is reported as having said:

  • “That’s typical, pathetic, insider politics if you ask me,” ,
  • “I fully expect” to be targeted by pro-Cagle forces in the next two weeks.
  • He said the group will criticize his record as Georgia’s top elections official and question his experience in the private sector.
  • “Cagle’s team will attempt to stop the bleeding he’s experiencing by lashing out at me,”
  • “But you’re smarter than that.”

Just as a reminder we are filling up two big Kemp evidence buckets: 1) Kemp’s role in data breaches and disclosures, 2) The lawsuit claiming he lied to make $500,00.0.

Again, this is evidence that Conservatives just cannot govern.  They don’t trust anyone.

In these critical times for our communities, one would think the GOP would be talking about how to solve the issues.  Particularly how to solve the issues of divisiveness in our communities.  Instead of walking the walk of improved civility they chose to attack in relatively mean ways.  Using phrases like “secret donors and shady tactics” and “That’s typical, pathetic, insider politics if you ask me.”

It is normal political communication to criticize your opponent.  But, Kemp, Cagle, and most Conservatives have raised criticism to a hateful art.

We know they don’t like government.  This is evidence for a possible reason they hate government.  Perhaps they hate everyone that is not them.

Clowns in the Press Embrace Truthiness Over Truth Because They Can – TheResurgent.com

If your friends are telling you he is an idiot, why is he performing well, where it counts? I think there are too many who rush to judge the President on style, or personality, when they should be judging him on performance. Is it just that many are too caught up in playing like the media and everyone is now their own pundit of personality? I guess many live in the tweet domain of life and choose not to live their own lives. I think most Americans still just want to go and do their jobs, entertain themselves and their family, play with the dog, go out to eat, exercise and go to sleep at night, rather than worry over what the President says on Twitter. I doubt I’ll be buying that book about how crazy he is, or let it bother me. There is just too much else to do. Me? I’m re-grouting the floor in one of the bathrooms, this morning. I’d rather be talking about what the government shouldn’t be doing, than to concern myself, further, with what some gossip novelist says, who can’t be trusted to write or bother with anything, more than gossip.

Source: Clowns in the Press Embrace Truthiness Over Truth Because They Can – TheResurgent.com

Fox News Corrects Story Claiming Roy Moore Accuser ‘Forged’ Candidate’s Signature

Fox News updated a story that erroneously claimed one of Roy Moore ’s accusers had “forged” evidence she’d presented to bolster her claim against him. Beverly Young Nelson said in a press conference with attorney Gloria Allred in November that the Republican Alabama Senate candidate had sexually assaulted her […]

Support for Roy Moore Exposes Evangelical Bias Against New Information

I saw today that Roy Moore still has 46% to 41% lead over his Democratic opponent, Doug Jones.

And I have to say, the fact that so many still support Roy Moore and say they would rather have Roy Moore than any Democrat, exposes Evangelicals bias against new information.

Even though there is all this new information about Roy Moore, Evangelicals are sticking with him.  Moore’s supporters are blaming media, particularly the Washington Post.

And it got me thinking that when Evangelicals say they hate the media they are actually saying they hate change.

New information can either cause Cognitive Dissonance or Cognitive Peace.

The challenge is that we don’t know before hand whether new information will cause us dissonance or peace.

Some, like me, find new information exciting.  Others not so much.

Those that say they hate the media, are really saying they hate new information.

The “media” (Broadcast Networks Fox, CNN, MSNBC, Public Networks like CSPAN, Print News, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, emails, and the Internet in general) is constantly providing new information.

So, it makes sense that if you don’t want new information you are going to hate the “media.”  And if you can find a “media” outlet that provides the same information you agree with over and over again chances are you will only consume that media, because it provides cognitive peace.

 

The Evangelical Worldview

The deep distrust of the media and scientific consensus is a common and popular Evangelical Worldview.

Evangelicals distrust information coming from the scientific or media elite fundamentally (pun intended) because they, the scientific and media elite, do not hold the same “biblical worldview” as Evangelicals.

The Evangelical Worldview is a all encompassing worldview revealed by studying the Bible.  This Evangelical Worldview teaches climate change isn’t real, evolution is a myth made up by scientists who hate God, abortion must be stopped, and capitalism is God’s ideal for society.

Of course Evangelicals are not the only ones who won’t believe authorities trusted by the other side. Confirmation Bias, Selective Perception, and Motivated Reasoning happens to everyone.  And we all need to be cautious when we form ideas and beliefs.

But, there is a huge difference between me, let’s say, and the Evangelicals I know.  Evangelicals believe their own authority — the inerrant Bible — is both supernatural and scientifically sound, and this conviction gives that natural human aversion to unwelcome facts a special power on the right.  The words in the Bible cannot change! Ones, understanding of those words can change, but the words cannot.

 

The following is a post from the NY Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/opinion/sunday/the-evangelical-roots-of-our-post-truth-society.html

There is a lot of good information here.  Hopefully the community will be able to process it.

History of Fact Denial

This religious tradition of fact denial long predates the rise of the culture wars, social media or President Trump, but it has provoked deep conflict among evangelicals themselves.

That innocuous phrase — “biblical worldview” or “Christian worldview” — is everywhere in the evangelical world. The radio show founded by Chuck Colson, “BreakPoint,” helps listeners “get informed and equipped to live out the Christian worldview.” Focus on the Family devotes a webpage to the implications of a worldview “based on the infallible Word of God.” Betsy DeVos’s supporters praised her as a “committed Christian living out a biblical worldview.”

The phrase is not as straightforward as it seems. Ever since the scientific revolution, two compulsions have guided conservative Protestant intellectual life: the impulse to defend the Bible as a reliable scientific authority and the impulse to place the Bible beyond the claims of science entirely.

The first impulse blossomed into the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

Scripture became the irrefutable guide to everything from the meaning of fossils to the interpretation of archaeological findings in the Middle East, a “storehouse of facts,” as the 19th-century theologian Charles Hodge put it.

The second impulse, the one that rejects scientists’ standing to challenge the Bible, evolved by the early 20th century into a school of thought called presuppositionalism. The term is a mouthful, but the idea is simple: We all have presuppositions that frame our understanding of the world. Cornelius Van Til, a theologian who promoted this idea, rejected the premise that all humans have access to objective reality. “We really do not grant that you see any fact in any dimension of life truly,” he wrote in a pamphlet aimed at non-Christians.

If this sounds like a forerunner of modern cultural relativism, in a way it is — with the caveat that one worldview, the one based on faith in an inerrant Bible, does have a claim on universal truth, and everyone else is a myopic relativist.

Nowadays, ministries, schools and media outlets use the term “Christian worldview” to signal their orthodoxy. But its pervasiveness masks significant disagreement over what it means. Many evangelical colleges allow faculty and students to question inerrancy, creationism and the presumption that Jesus would have voted Republican.

Karl Giberson taught biology for many years at Eastern Nazarene College in Quincy, Mass., where freshmen take a course that covers “the Christian worldview” alongside topics like “racial and gender equity” and “cultural diversity.” In the Church of the Nazarene, many leaders have been uneasy about the rationalist claims of biblical inerrancy, and Dr. Giberson openly taught the theory of evolution. “I was completely uncontroversial, for the most part,” he told me. “The problems emerged when I began to publish, when I became a public spokesman for this point of view.”