Blogger at the home of a Forgotten Man

By John Ruberry

Donald J. Trump’s presidential honeymoon with the media lasted sixteen minutes, which was, not coincidentally, the length of his inauguration address.

Since then, the media, with a few exceptions, has been relentlessly attacking the president, and by media, I’ll use the definition Rush Limbaugh gave this morning to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, which is ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post and USA Today.

I’ll add one more–a big one, CNN, sometimes called the Clinton News Network.

The media is striking back with an assault on the presidency not seen since the height of the Watergate scandal.

And Donald Trump is fighting them–and the media can’t ascertain why much of the public, their public, is siding with the president.

Because conservatives don’t like cheaters.

Among the damning revelations from the John Podesta emails hacked by WikiLeaks was clear evidence of collusion by some of these allegedly neutral outlets during the 2016 presidential campaign, most notoriously when CNN analyst Donna Brazile twice supplied a planned question to the Hillary Clinton campaign prior to a CNN-hosted debate with Bernie Sanders.

Viewers of those two CNN debates were cheated by CNN, which employed Brazile, as they rightly expected the Clinton-Sanders matchups to be, let’s use a popular term from the time when several Chicago White Sox players conspired to throw the 1919 World Series, “on the square.” Sure, Brazile, was fired, but only after she was caught the second time feeding a debate question to the Clinton machine. That says a lot. Oh, where did Brazile learn of these questions? Did they come from a low-level CNN staffer?

Liberals, with the possible exception of the most ardent members of the growing socialist wing of the Democratic Party, dismissed Brazile’s cheating as just the way the game is played, which is not how White Sox fans greeted news of the 1919 fix broke a year later.

Before there was fake news there was a fake World Series.

Here is my conservative-or-liberal litmus test: If you were angry–or still are angry–about media collusion with the Democratic Party during the 2016 campaign, they you are a conservative. If you are not, they you’re a liberal. It’s that easy.

Which explains why the media, again using the definition I gave earlier, is astounded that Trump not only attacks them millions of Americans are cheering him on.

After dutifully reporting on media collusion immediately after it was revealed, the media promptly ignored the scandal–their scandal–which is not the case with Russian interference, and yes, alleged hacking of the election by Russia of the presidential election, whatever that entails. It probably entails nothing. WikiLeaks’ founder, Julian Assange, repeatedly insists that Russia was not the source of the hacked Podesta emails.

Okay, you skeptics out there, you are probably thinking to yourselves that I am citing only two examples of CNN collusion, and that done by an analyst, not a reporter.

Still still for a moment. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and Jake Tapper, both of them anchors, the latter is the network’s Washington correspondent, were caught colluding by WikiLeaks. Other colluders captured in the WikiLeaks net were the New York Times and CNBC’s John Harwood, the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, Glenn Thrush, then of Politico and now of the New York Times, and Brent Budowsky of The Hill.

When Trump said on the stump “the system is rigged,” the colluders proved him right.

The Forgotten Man and the Forgotten Woman, that is, the people who play by the rules and try to make an honest living under increasingly daunting odds, elected Trump, despite the rigging.

John “Lee” Ruberry of the Magnificent Seven

And the cheating media still can’t figure out why most Americans despise them.

You Democratic cynics are probably still thinking, “Everyone does it.” No they don’t. Very few media outlets are conservative ones, so the opportunity simply isn’t there for Republicans to collude. The only instance of GOP collusion in a presidential campaign I can recall is George Will’s vague self-described “inappropriate” role in the 1980 Debategate micro-scandal.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Yesterday on WCRN Hank Stolz commented on the revelations concerning Donna Brazile funneling debate questions to the Hillary Clinton campaign which caused CNN to drop her (although apparently it didn’t cause CNN to devote a lot of air time to the story).

In the course of his comments he asked what would seem to be a logical question and I’m paraphrasing here: Why would she bother to do so?

Several of the questions could have been anticipated and were on topics that she was likely prepared for, that being the case, why would she bother to take the risk of scandalous behavior for a seemingly minimal advantage?

It is seemingly a very good question however the answer is very obvious: Why wouldn’t she?

Consider:

  • There was apparently no reason to believe the people she contacted in the Clinton campaign would object to refuse or divulge the reception the inside information
  • There was apparently no reason to believe that Hillary Clinton herself or any of her debate prep handlers would would be passed this info would object to, refuse or expose her divulging inside information.
  • There was apparently no reason to believe that the any such person would give a tip to the media about the divulging of this information or apparently the media bothering to report on it.
  • And There was apparently no reason to believe that the media would pursue this question on their own.

She didn’t worry about the dangers of being caught because she knew that neither the Clinton campaign nor the media that supports it would have any inclination to try to catch or expose her but she had positive evidence that any attempt to claim that the fix was in would be met with universal derision and ridicule by the media.

In other words she had no reason to believe there would be any consequences for her actions so why shouldn’t she do these things?

It was only through Wikileaks  that this information came out, and this was something she did not anticipate nor did she have reason to do so at the time of her actions.

A better question for Hank to ask is this:  Given the complete lack of risk of exposure for these actions, how many years do you think people like Donna Brazile were “fixing” debates in this way?  As the Hill put it:

Americans now have reason to wonder about the other debates and who else in the so-called unbiased media world was seeking to assist the Clinton campaign by sneaking her a preview of questions or tilting the news in her favor. Such thinking is no longer cynical; it’s just realistic as we’ve seen just how widespread the corruption and bias goes.

And if people are willing to cheat in the debates, what else wouldn’t they justify cheating on to accomplish their ends?

Closing thought:  I have for many years publicly objected to wikileaks and anonymous and still do.  I don’t like hacking and believe in personal privacy.  The question is:  Given the fact that there is every reason to believe this illegal/immoral behavior would have continued unabated without these exposures,  can these actions be justified as a form of “guerrilla journalism” to keep our rulers honest?  Particularly give the fact that almost nobody in the MSM is asking the obvious question raised at the Hill, certainly not on TV anyways.


If you’d like to help support independent non MSM journalism and opinion please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. Right now our subscribers consist of 1/50 of 1% of our total unique visitors based on last years numbers.

If we can get another 150 subscribers at $10 a month (another 1/10 of 1% of those who have visited this year) We can meet our annual goals with no trouble, with the same number of subscribers at $20 a month I could afford to cover the presidential campaign outside of New England firsthand.

And of course at that price you get the Da Magnificent Seven plus those we hope to add on and all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



After the debate I approached James Lileks


and Jonah Goldberg

Jonah at the end of a long day

asking for interviews, both declined as they were “talked out” but James and I had chatted during the breaks in the action and Jonah consented to the photo you see. One must remember that while it was a fun event for many, this was work for them. Pleasant work perhaps but work.

Stacy, Mike from Granite Grok and I, joined by a gentleman named Peter who we were debating the issues with, went to the Bar to have a bite and talk more.

To my surprise there was an inordinate amount of press there from Dianne Sawyer to Howard Fineman. You could not go 3 feet without tripping over someone who the informed would recognize.

As I didn’t want to interrupt people eating nor photograph them as they did so I left them be while the four of us talked about what we saw, however a few people came over and we had an occasion to chat.

Pete, Stacy and Jake Tapper

Jake scolded me for not e-mailing him as we discussed but I’d been flat-out and just didn’t have the time, the concept that I didn’t have time to e-mail him is on reflection an amazing thing.

Mickey Kaue and Stacy

I had never had the pleasure of meeting Mickey Kaus till tonight, he is a nice guy but the odd think I noticed was his business card, not because of any fancy design but the paper stock was the heaviest I ever felt on such a card. Odd the things you notice.

Pete meanwhile managed to get pictures with Dianne Sawyer (It is quite astonishing how beautiful she is up close), and several other media stars from Mary Matalin to some of the NRO guys. Donna Brazile had only a second but came over and I snapped this shot:

You might ask why am I not in any pictures, I don’t really do posed pictures myself

Pete however had a field day, if you follow this stuff this it was something to behold so many people from so many prominent TV networks and national publications and blogs.

But the title of this post is the most important person in the bar, I saved his picture for last:

Meet Joseph the man who matters the most

Joseph has never been on TV, you will not find his byline in any national magazine or blog but he was the single most important person that I met. You see Joseph is a resident of NH and a voter who plans on voting in the NH primary and it is his decision and thousands like him that all of the press in the room are dependent on for our stories.

I talked to two other such people who might have competed with Joseph for that honor but one was a democrat who will not be voting Tuesday, and the other declined to comment. Joseph said he was undecided. I gave him my card and asked him if he could e-mail me when he makes up his mind.

There were at least 50 journalists in the room with Joseph, people who have honed their craft over decades, but to my knowledge he wasn’t asked that question by anyone else. Granted they were off the clock but in my mind that question is the reason for being there.

If I get that e-mail from Joseph and he gives me permission I’ll tell you what he decides and why, but never forget there may have been a lot of celebrates in that room, some of who make a considerable amount of money, but on Tuesday next, none of them will matter as much as he.

Update: Instalanche, got this up at 4:15 a.m. (not scheduled written) woke up at 8 and then off to NH once debate is done, looking forward to morning Joe Town Hall tonight, glad Pats have a bye.

…because one should not beclown oneself so without ample payment:

Donna Brazile: Feels good to make change without war

It gets even funnier when you read it, a peek:

“How” we will “get” Gaddafi is also clear. We will not use military might to get Gaddafi. We will use diplomacy….

Backed by 221 Tomahawk missiles and more to be used if Nato asks. They are apparently best diplomats in the world.

no nightly news reporting on a third war in a Middle East nation; no draining of our national treasury.

Other than the 1 billion + we spent as of March 23rd or so.

The major actors in Libya around the globe have the message: Gaddafi’s days are numbered. Generally speaking, the only people to whom the obvious is not clear are the same men who involved us in an eight-year war, like Rumsfeld.

Well Rumsfeld and US Officials that is.

And it will have come about without a single American’s “boots on the ground.”

Except the CIA boots and special forces who are apparently barefoot.

You know at least Charlie Sheen got a crowd to pay $20 a head to make a fool of himself.

There are useful idiots and there are just idiots, I’ll leave it to you to decide how useful Ms. Brazile is.

Update: Happiness is an Instalanche on the first day at a new location, please adjust your bookmarks accordingly. And don’t worry I’m updating the blogroll as I go along.