Jeffrey Epstein Hillary Clinton Election 2020 & DaTechGuy’s Laws of Media outrage

On Wednesday I noticed this on twitter concerning Jeffrey Epstein and the Miami Herald:

The Miami Herald has put together a bombshell of an investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and prosecutors who negotiated a sealed plea arrangement that allowed the billionaire to only spend a year in jail and avoid prosecution for allegedly sexually assaulting dozens of underage girls in what the paper described as a “sex pyramid scheme.”

As yesterday was the 10th anniversary of the blog, the name instantly brought back memories of days gone past, some very LONG past.

It’s axiomatic that sex sells so when you combine the words: “Private Island”, “Lawsuit” & “Orgies” you have a story that normally is guaranteed viral:

Tales of orgies and young girls being shipped to the island, called Little St. James, have been revealed as part of an ongoing lawsuit between Epstein and his former lawyers Scott Rothstein and Bradley Edwards.

That was from April 2014 and the entire gist of the piece titled

Private Islands, Orgies, Bill Clinton? Nothing to see here

was how this story did not go viral because it involved Bill Clinton:

If there is one thing the media that loves to play the War on Women® card doesn’t want to touch it’s a story about people using their own private island to get laid that involves Bill Clinton.

What could the media do if this story involving the former father of the year? They would call it old news, not relevant, dirty tricks from a salacious lawsuit that doesn’t even involve him and an attack on Hillary that crosses the line. In fact the left will deploy a plethora of adjectives to discourage further discussion of this story from antiquated to zany, but there is one adjective that could not come out of their mouth to dismiss this story:

Unbelievable

The last few years have proven that the left can convince a low information voter of a lot of things, but even the full power of the mainstream media and the strongest zealots from the War on Women® brigade would not be able to convince the American public that Bill Clinton would have no interest or business on a private island where orgies took place.

The real exclamation point to this argument came two years later in May of 2016 when on Morning Joe, Donny Deutch explained why the left’s attacks on Donald Trump vis a vis women could backfire because of the magic words: Jeffrey Epstein

“Here’s the tennis game,” Deutsch said. “Donald Trump kissed a woman in a bathing suit. Trump hits back: Tell me about the president’s relationship with a guy named Jeffrey Epstein. That’s your tennis match.”

and the entire Morning Joe table reacted, not in words but by their faces:

well take a look at the video and two things become immediately clear.

Everybody at the Table knows who Jeffery Epstein is, and what the story is

Nobody at the table wanted to talk about it

In fact they SO didn’t want to talk about it that NBC put in a copyright claim on the video that the Washington Free Beacon had excerpted in their piece thus hiding this previously viral video from anyone who didn’t remember the day, the segment and how to navigate the byzantine labyrinth of their embed system.  As I put it at the time:

Maybe it’s just me but given how often we see stuff at mediaite et al it seems rather unusual for a news network to make a copyright claim over a clip from a news story that used as “fair use” by another news organization. Could this suggest that NBC wants to keep this clip out of the public view because it might hurt Hillary?

I can see the NBC reaction now: Nonsense, we’re not censoring the clip at all. The seven minute clip IS available IF you

Go to the Morning Joe site

Hit search taking you to the MSNBC search engine

Search for Donald Trump

Narrow the field to Morning Joe

Narrow the field to May 16th 2016

and sit through all the videos till you find the right one.

And skip ahead to the 12 minute mark on that video.

If you do so you CAN find the clip and watch the Morning Joe panel’s reaction to what Donny Deutsch says

All of this was of course completely consistent with DaTechGuy’s 1st law of media outrage which states

The level of Outrage or interest of the media and their allies on the left concerning any insult or prevarication concerning a person or thing will routinely be equal to the inverse of the degree of the political distance between said media / leftists and and the target of said insult or prevarication at the time it is made.

In this case we were talking an action rather than an insult or prevarication but the law fits.  There was no political distance between the left and Bill Clinton and a clear connection to Mr. Epstein, therefore the level of interest or outrage concerning Mr. Epstein’s actions concerning underage women were consequently zero.

So what changed the equation more than two years later?  This is partially answered by this line in the story at Twitchy (emphasis mine):

Since Epstein is linked to both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump and since the prosecutor who gave him the sweetheart deal is current Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta, we imagine we’ll be hearing a lot more about it in the coming weeks.

So there is a now a Trump/administration connection to be exploited here, but even so, Mr. Acosta has been secretary of labor for eighteen months and the Weinstein revelation and the #metoo have been a thing since at least Oct of 2017.  Why wait a full year to go there, particularly when a scandal involving a Florida republican might have been useful to bring up before a critical 2018 Florida election, an election that Democrats lost?

The answer comes from a seemingly unrelated story in the Hill from last month

Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton during an event over the weekend left the door open to a possible 2020 run, saying that even though she doesn’t want to run, “I’d like to be president.” 

Clinton’s comments come as speculation has increased over whether she will launch another bid after the midterm elections….

She added that she’s not going to think about a possible run until after the midterm elections next month. 

Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, announced this month that they will be embarking on a 13-city tour over the next year, hosting discussions about current events and politics across the country.

There are a lot of Democrats who are thinking of running in 2020 who believe they can beat Donald Trump but of all those potential 2020 candidates Hillary Clinton is unique as she is only one who we can say with complete certainty that President Trump is capable of defeating because he’s already done so once.

As the media primary purpose is to elect Democrats, it is in their interest and of course in the interest of every single other potential Democrat candidate that Hillary is NOT the 2020 Democrat nominee.  The problem of course is finding a way to shall we say persuade Hillary and Bill that a 2nd run for President is a bad idea without risking her wrath by a direct attack?

That’s where Jeffrey Epstein and DaTechGuy’s 2nd Law of Media outrage comes into play:

The level of acceptance of the positions and/or actions of any group or organization by the left and media is directly proportional to their current or potential value in electing liberal Democrats.

If the MSM thought a Hillary Clinton for President 2020 run was good for democrats then the Jeffrey Epstein story would remain on open Washington secret only to be mentioned by conservative bloggers who can be banned by twitter or whose traffic can be manipulated by Google.

But with Bill and Hillary Clinton’s potential value in electing liberal Democrats in 2020 low or perhaps even negative, the media can, and indeed MUST expose the sweetheart deal that Mr. Epstein received at the hand of prosecutors years ago not because of their faux outrage over Epstein acts but because of their desire to win in 2020.

You might think that’s a rather cynical opinion, and 10 years ago today I might not have held it, but as I said yesterday:

There is an old saying that familiarity breeds contempt and nothing has increased by contempt for the MSM then observing them closely for 10 years except for one thing, that is being in the room with them as credentialed press and simply watching and listening to what they say and do. 

After 10 years of watching these folks in action I submit and suggest that no other opinion is possible.

********************

—————–

if you think this site is still worth supporting after 10 years please consider kicking in here:



Or even better subscribing.


Choose a Subscription level


Or buying my book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer

Either way it’s most appreciated.

 

DaTechGuy’s 2nd Law of Democrat/Media Outrage


A while back we postulated DaTechGuy’s theory (law) of Media Outrage which states:

The level of Outrage or interest of the media and their allies on the left concerning any insult or prevarication concerning a person or thing will routinely be equal to the inverse of the degree of the political distance between said media / leftists and and the target of said insult or prevarication at the time it is made.

However looking at the theory (law) as it stands it seems to be missing a few things.  First of all the theory (law) while supported by the current evidence, only covers words, and not so much actions or beliefs. nor does it convey the progression of certain things from acceptable to unacceptable.

So I’d like to propose a corollary to this theory  or DaTechGuy’s 2nd Law of Democrat/Media Outrage.

The level of acceptance of the positions and/or actions of any group or organization by the left and media is directly proportional to their current or potential value in electing liberal Democrats.

As we noted in our first post in March, the test of any such theory or law requires evident to show it is true.  Namely can we see a progression on the media/left positions based on support for the Democrat party?

As a matter of fact we can!

We can see this progression in many ways for example take the confederacy:

When Democrats’ national position depended on unwavering support from “the Solid South,” we got lots of pro-Southern propaganda: the Lost Cause, Gone With The Wind, Disneyfied Uncle Remus, etc. As a vital Democrat constituency group, southerners, even practical neo-Confederates, were absolved of all sins as long as they stayed in line.

A great example of this was cited by Dinesh D’Sousa

In fact as late as 2003  Howard Dean was saying things like this:

“I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks,” the former Vermont governor said in an interview published Saturday in the Des Moines Register. “We can’t beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats.”

This is actually no surprise because despite the MSM narratives to the contrary Democrats still held the majority of the State House of Representatives of the old confederacy.  But as the Democrats went farther left by 2008 and became a secular party they continued to lose states south of the Mason Dixon line until today of the bible belt and border states only Delaware (which they first took in 2009) and Maryland which they’ve continually held for almost 100 years remain in their hands and the worm suddenly turned.  As Glenn Reynolds put it

Now the South isn’t “solid” anymore — or, more accurate, it’s becoming pretty solidly Republican — so rather than receiving cultural dispensations, it now gets targeted for cultural warfare.

Or consider Christianity.  As long as the Democrat Party had a large contingent of religious voters then the Bill Clintons, Hillary Clintons, Al Gores and even Barack Obama’s didn’t attack or demonize those who had followed the same teachings of Christianity that have been taught for thousands of years.  In fact back in the Clinton years the Democrats insisted that anyone claiming that the Democrats were pushing for Gay Marriage were alarmists.

But once it became clear in 2012 that it was the Gay lobby and the money and votes they need would be more critical Christianity was something to be ditched and Gay Marriage and Transgenderism was to be embraced.  When it became clear that even the Christian black vote would not turn on Obama suddenly anyone who didn’t follow the Gay Marriage/Transgender agenda were bigots and haters.

And then there is Islam.  During the 90’s and up until 2008 it was not controversial for American president and members of congress to support the wars against radical Islam in Iraq or Afghanistan and to condemn acts of Islamic Terror.

But once supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood started opening their wallets, particularly in big cities, to build mosques, and fund university programs, and Democrats figured out that even they can’t vote the dead if their aborted and the ghastly Tom Hagen math takes over:

 In 20 years the children of Muslims now being raised on the tenets of Sharia law in America will be old enough to vote and Democrats going to make sure they get those votes when the time come, not now but 10-20 years from now. 

This is how suddenly Orando goes from a terror attack by a Gay hating muslim to something to be blamed on the GOP and the NRA.

It’s also how an American president (Obama) and secretary of state (Kerry) become willing to throw Israel under the bus to keep Islam and Bernie Bros happy.

the truth is the Bernie Sanders democrats are anti Israel and have spent the entire Obama administration courting a growing segment of the population that is pro dead jews and growing a base, particularly on campus that hates Israel openly and hates Jews clandestinely.

It’s also incidentally why the ACLU, found itself under attack for upholding one of the few nonpartisan principles they had retained, namely free speech.  Once their defense of free speech was inconvenient to the left the attacks began and the ACLU evolved, very quickly.  Why?

But a new generation of ACLU members and donors, who surged to the group after the election of President Donald Trump, know the group primarily as a champion of causes typically aligned with the left, like pressing for greater immigrant and LGBT rights, and reducing criminal penalties.

Since the election, the ACLU’s membership has nearly quadrupled to 1.6 million and the group has received $83 million in online donations, said Stacy Sullivan, an ACLU spokeswoman.

In November, the ACLU solicited donations on its home page with a picture of the then president-elect and the words, “We’ll see you in court.”

And as the corollary notes, the farther you get from the the left’s positions, the less tolerated your positions become.

So if you are a group or individual or even a business and wonder how the left will react at any given time, my advice is to simply apply DaTechGuy’s Laws of Democrat/Media Outrage and you can see what’s coming every single time.


If you want a source of reporting other than the MSM please consider hitting DaTipJar

Henriquez and Lunenburg Nothing (Useful) to see here…

Yesterday Carlos Henriquez made the front page of the Boston Herald:

Inmate lawmaker Rep. Carlos Henriquez is doing his Beacon Hill business from his Billerica jail cell, thumbing through bills and budget proposals, and speaking to staff by phone “at least once a day,”

according to the disgraced Dorchester Democrat’s legislative aide.

“We’ve been in regular contact with him, and at this point he’s concerned with the issues of the district,” aide Jessica DaSilva told the Herald.

Prison is a pretty boring place so Henriquez is lucky to have all this legislative and constituent business to keep his day full.

DaSilva said Henriquez’s office is fielding four or five constituent calls a day, mostly from people concerned about cuts to unemployment benefits. She said Henriquez also has been reviewing budget amendments, though she would not say which.

If nothing else it means the voters know where he is 24/7 and he has time to read the bills if he so chooses.

Now to me A lawmaker convicted of assaulting a women who refused him sex and had to escape his car in the wee hours of the morning is, in the era of the “war on woman” a national story, that same lawmaker refusing to resign is even more so but that lawmaker on the front page of a state newspaper doing legislative work from in prison while refusing to resign? How does that not lead?

For the same reason as this story out of Lunenburg will get very little press:

There is not enough evidence to charge the prime suspect in a racist graffiti case that rocked Lunenburg late last year, Worcester County District Attorney Joseph D. Early, Jr. said Wednesday.

No charges?

“We have notified the Lunenburg Police Department that the evidence presented to us fails to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed by a particular person,” wrote Early in an email his office has been sending to Lunenburg residents who have inquired about the case.

But this story was big news, it even appeared on national TV shows,

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

How can this be? The base story appeared in papers as far away as Atlanta Ga & London England, it made SI.

Yet the DA’s office has suddenly decided that the reasonable doubt standard that used to apply to juries in the case replaces the “ham sandwich” standard that normally applies to indictments.

Now it could be that the DA decided that it would be a waste of taxpayer money, and that a conviction is unlikely but given the reach of the story such a decision would naturally generate press around the world, and stories full of outrage, a DA would normally be worried about that kind of thing and be prepared to answer a lot of tough question from reporters around the world.

I suspect he is not.

You see the primary suspect in this story is no longer the largely white football team in a small town but the mother of the supposed target of the racist graffiti. It is no longer a story about racism, it is about yet another race hoax. If the team had still been the suspect and racism been the theme and the DA a republican the decision to not press charges would be a source of national outrage and coverage but remember the rule we stated yesterday.

I submit & suggest it’s because all of these stories involve Democrats and their national memes and Democrats understand that when it comes to such stories MSM immediately recognizes them as unnewsworthy.

So like the Democrat combatant in the war on women currently doing his legislative work behind bars, the race hoaxer who turned her community upside down with a phony race card and the Democrat’s DA decision not to prosecute are simply not newsworthy.

Meanwhile my question from last month still stands:

Where does the town of Lunenburg go to get their reputation back, where does the football team go to get their Thanksgiving game back and who pays for all the police, local state and federal that were used in the attempt to sell this BS?

nothing to see here, move along.

Exit question: While one can argue that the family in the small town is now marked and suffered enough what sort of incentive is created for the next race hoaxer who wants to destroy a person or a town’s reputation for personal or political reasons when they know they are unlikely to face any legal consequence?

Update: The Parents of some of the boys who were initially implicated are none too happy

“I said it before and I’ll say it again, the people that are responsible for this are cowards,” Szabady said. “You know, to do something like this and blame it on kids and just sit back and watch? You’re a coward. And the law will eventually catch up to you.”

Or perhaps not.

By an odd coincidence the AG of Massachusetts is running for governor. I wonder if such a case, if prosecuted might be problematic during the campaign? Then again maybe there is hope

The Lunenburg Police Chief tells WBZ-TV that federal charges could be filed.

Yeah I’m sure Eric Holder will get right on that one.

Meanwhile Stacy McCain has discovered another perp that doesn’t fit the media’s template.

Update 2: Glenn Reynolds linked to the Boston Herald Story above. Does that mean national republicans will finally use this as a weapon in the war on women BS? If they do and it gets repeated on any national show I predict pressure from national democrats will have Henriquez out of office so fast it will make your head swim.

Update 3: Why is Henriquez not resigning after assaulting a women who refused him sex? Maybe we should ask his mom Sandra Henriquez Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing for the Obama administration.

Where does Lunenburg go to get it’s Reputation back?

It’s amazing the difference a few weeks has made in the City of Lunenburg:

Was it only a few weeks ago that we learned how racist the Town of Lunenburg in general and the football team in particular? That the football team in was responsible for painting:  “Knights don’t need niggers” on the house of a bi-racial family with a young and very talented football player on the team who was subject to a spate of bullying?

Didn’t we have editorials decry the racism of the town, didn’t the governor weigh in, weren’t commentators talking all about this.

Didn’t Good Morning America weigh in?

Breaking News from ABC
|
ABC Sports News

and compare it to the Miami Dolphens scandal?

The Lunenburg story has echoes of the rookie hazing scandal that has enveloped the NFL’s Miami Dolphins.

Veteran Richie Incognito was suspended indefinitely on Nov. 4 after rookie Jonathan Martin turned in voice mails and text messages that allegedly showed Incognito using the N-word to describe Martin and threaten his family, according to ESPN.

The controversy came to light after Fox Sports reported that Martin and other rookies had been forced to pay thousands of dollars for dinner tabs and vacations for more veteran members of the team.

And didn’t the Lunenburg Football team forfeit the rest of the games and have their traditional Thanksgiving game cancelled?

Well that was only fair, after all you can’t let racism like that stand. As far as all right thinking people were concerned they had it coming….

…what a difference a few weeks and an actual investigation makes.

First the Football team is cleared:

Police in Lunenburg, Mass. say high school football players were not responsible for racist graffiti found on the side of a junior varsity player’s home.

So with the football team cleared, the question remains: Who is responsible for the racist graffiti sprayed on the home?

And the parents who had plenty to say before …

Chief Jim Marino said the Phillips parents are not talking to police anymore.

…are now singing a different tune:

Anthony Phillips returned to the end of his driveway to wait for his children to get off the school bus. Asked about rumors that he might have been involved in the incident, Phillips replied, “That just shows you how racist this town is.”

And Today the worm turned…big time:

The Boston Globe:

Police search Lunenburg home where graffiti found

Police focus turns toward victim’s mother in Lunenburg racist graffiti case

The Worcester Telegram and Gazette:

Search warrant issued at Lunenburg home where racist graffiti was reported

The Lowell Sun

Investigators focusing on mother of Lunenburg graffiti victim

And the Sentinel & Enterprise :

Investigators are focusing on the mother of a Lunenburg teen whose home was spray painted with racist graffiti last month, according to court documents.

Former Lunenburg High School football player Isaac Phillips’ mother Andrea Brazier, replied “OK” when an FBI agent suggested she was the one who spray painted graffiti on the house, according to an affidavit.

The Sentinel has been all over this story from day one.

Now that the case has gone the full circle from outrage confirming liberal prejudices to yet another race hoax it’s time for the question to be asked

Where does the town of Lunenburg go to get their reputation back, where does the football team go to get their Thanksgiving game back and who pays for all the police, local state and federal that were used in the attempt to sell this BS?

And will the sites in AtlantaMetro USThe UK Daily MailSports IllustratedFox Chicago and the Huffington Post be reporting on these new developments with the same gusto?

Update: Stacy McCain links (sorry I hit the sack early last night and had the PC off) and he knows something (Bill Sparkman) about hoaxes

Ruh-roh. If she lied to the FBI, she could be in big trouble. But since when is it the FBI’s job to investigate racist graffiti? And if real racist graffiti is a federal offense, what is fake racist graffiti? The alleged hate crime was a big deal last month:

Two quick thoughts:

1. It really boggles the mind that someone would be willing to tar a group of teenagers, their families, a school and really an entire Town for the sake of a personal agenda. That degree of selfishness is incredible in its narcissistic depth.

2. If it turns out that the mother is the culprit she has done more damage to her son and her marriage than any amount of teaching or racist words could have done. And it will follow her son for years. How does a parent not realize that?

Update 2:  Michael Graham reports Lunenburg school folks haven’t learned much:

Now, with egg splattered all over their faces, the Lunenburg administrators STILL INSIST they did the right thing!

“I never looked at the cancellations as punishment, although it was certainly viewed that way by many. In the end, the safety of students and attendees at the games was deemed as of paramount importance. At no time did I or any employee of the schools indict or implicate players,” said Lunenburg Superintendent of Schools Loxi Jo Calmes.

Lunenburg’s superintendent and high school principal defended the decision to cancel the rest of the football season amid allegations against the players of writing racist graffiti.

“I thought would I have brought my own kids to that game? And the answer is no way. Why? Because it wasn’t safe to play,” Principal Brian Spadafino said.

The Lunenburg high football game “wasn’t safe?” From what–marauding bands of spray-painters?  Hordes of KKK members?

I think the next batch of town elections in Lunenburg are going to be very interesting.

Update 3:
 Ace finds the story.

Update 4: Liberty Unyielding notes that all “hate graffiti” is created equal in media eyes:

As an important aside on an unrelated case, about 50 miles away from Lunenburg High, Masslive.com revealed yesterday that three teens were in custody “in connection with 13 incidents in October and November where homes, churches and cars were either vandalized or set on fire.”

The article reads in part,

“Symbols, slurs, sexually explicit images and, in the case of United Church of Ware, an expletive directed at God and the words “Catholic burning,” were spray-painted…” [added emphasis]

This author can find no other mention in any other source of the anti-Catholic slur. Is the FBI involved in that case? Will this anti-Catholic incident be investigated as a “hate crime?”

I guess some targets of hate are more equal than others.