Showing posts with label Nora O'Donnell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nora O'Donnell. Show all posts

Thursday, June 25, 2020

Why The CIA's Best Really Have Little Use For "Mogul" - aka Trump

Central Intelligence Agency Hat or Lapel Pin


"Trump's claims of 'no collusion' are hogwash. Trump  clearly has become  more desperate to protect himself and those close to him which is why he made the politically motivated decision to revoke my security clearance....I've seen this type of behavior on the part of foreign tyrants and despots. I just never ever thought I'd see it in the United States. " Former CIA Director  John Brennan,  Aug. 14, 2018 on 'All In'

Watching John Bolton's recent interviews with Martha Radditz and Nora O'Donnell, where he refers to Trump as "a threat to the Republic"- I had to wonder which cave he just crawled out from . I mean, good grief, that's been known at least since 2017 with Yale psychiatrist Bandy X. Lee's terminal takedown of this walking refuse in her book, 'The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump'.   Therein she refers to him as:

 "A disruptive personality and a peril to our collective security each day he remains in office. "    

 That has proven prescient as we've beheld his subversive and even traitorous behavior ever since, including:  his siding with  top former KGB chief Putin on numerous fronts (against his own intel agencies), getting Barr in as his personal AG to work from the inside to take down the Mueller investigators and release co-conspirators (e.g. Roger Stone, Michael Flynn),  trying to use foreign powers to take down his political opponents,  like Joe Biden, and incessantly smearing and disparaging his own intelligence chiefs as well as their briefings.  None of this behavior can remotely be regarded as normal for a U.S. president - but it certainly is normal for a Manchurian candidate or enemy mole - catapulted into power with assistance from Russian assets and influence, i.e. in the 2016 election.


Tony Schwarz,  the ghost writer who wrote  'The Art of the Deal' for him, had this to say (p. 73, ibid.):

"His amygdala is repeatedly triggered...and his prefrontal cortex - the part of the brain that makes us capable of rationality and reflection - shuts down. He reacts rather than reflects - and damn the consequences.  This is what makes his access to the nuclear codes so dangerous and frightening."


This is not exaggeration and who can forget the infamous Helsinki meet with Putin where Trump agreed with him that U.S. agents and assets could rightfully be sent to Moscow for interrogation by the GRU, if the U.S. were to question Russian assets here.  Prompting this accurate depiction:

Max Boot, writing in the July 25, 2018 WaPo also noted:

Trump is willing, under duress, to briefly and begrudgingly admit that Russian “meddling” took place in 2016 before reverting to calling it a “big hoax.” But he always maintains that the plot against America had no impact; he describes it as a “Democrat excuse for losing the ’16 Election.”

Here is the intelligence community’s assessmentpartially declassified in January 2017: “We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election. The US Intelligence Community is charged with monitoring and assessing the intentions, capabilities, and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze US political processes or US public opinion.” When then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo claimed last fall that “the intelligence community's assessment is that the Russian meddling that took place did not affect the outcome of the election,” his own agency rebuked him.

This brings us to today, and there is no question Trump is a walking, disruptive debacle and massive national security threat.  As I pulled out an extensive Denver Post piece from May 24 I was reminded why this mutt ("Mogul" is his Secret Service monicker) can't possibly be held in very high regard by the CIA.  Below are some of the things they've learned about him since - bearing in mind all his other transgressions with Putin, Kim Jong Un and others, as well as his traitorous lackeys like Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort et al.

- By the time of the Jan. 23 intelligence briefing, officials were already alarmed by the signs of a crisis in China where the virus first broke. But Trump balked at further measures - other than a travel ban - and the U.S. "lost its chance to more effectively mitigate the virus in the following weeks."

- Agency mainstays found Trump was "particularly difficult to brief on critical national security matters".  He lacked the interest or the attention span, as Bolton also noted in his interviews (Trump barely read one briefing per week and that had to be cartoon-ized). 

Repeatedly during the most critical briefings, such as after N. Korea missile tests, Trump would "veer off on tangents and getting him back on topic proved extremely difficult".  In addition, in the midst of critical agency points Trump "was unashamed to interrupt intel officers".  Instead he would "riff about gossip he heard from former casino magnate Steve Wynn, retired golfer Gary Player, or Christopher Ruddy, the conservative media executive."

- Agency officials found that Trump "rarely absorbed information that he disagreed with, or that ran counter to his world view."  Hence putting his ignorance and stupidity above the national security interest.  As one official put it:  "Briefing him was so great a challenge compared with his predecessors that the intelligence agencies had to hire outside consultants to study how better to present information to him."   (Many suggested cartoons, but that wasn't on and no one seriously considered it.  There was a limit to how low the information conveyance mechanism could be.)

- "Working to keep Trump's interest exhausted and burned out his first briefer, Ted Gistaro.  Gistaro didn't always know what to expect and would sometimes be forced to brief an erratic and angry president upset over news reports."

- Some Agency mainstays and vets believe "Mogul" is beyond redemption - a lost cause.   They recall and cite his "yearslong attack on the intelligence agencies" and in particular how he "publicly belittled his intelligence chiefs last year after a congressional hearing where they offered assessments at odds with the White House.".  "Mogul" was so infuriated at the evident contradiction that he roared the intel chiefs "should all go back to school". 

- During typical 30-50 minute briefings Mogul's most commonly used diversion was to ask the intel officials: "How do you know?"    At each point,  despite the extensive background info (which Trump never read) he chose to counter with his own deformed and erratic statistics.  Trying to steer him toward the proper and tested stats was akin to trying to teach a brain defective monkey to eat a proper banana instead of one full of fungus.    Worse, "any time the intel chiefs directly challenged Mogul and his bogus stats eroded his trust further and he stopped listening".

What we have here is a cumulative assay of betrayal, incompetence and wreckage on a national scale and driven by the putative "leader" of the nation. A mentally deranged buffoon and plausible puppet for an enemy state who - as Bolton noted in his book and interviews - consistently puts himself at the center of action, decision and response - never the nation.  In this sense he has betrayed his oath to the Constitution and is little more than a traitor, irrespective of his clownish reactions to intelligence briefings - which themselves show he needs to resign forthwith.  As WSJ columnist Peggy Noonan wrote in her recent (June 6-7, p. A13) piece:

"This will not end well. With his timing he'd know it. He should give an Oval Office address announcing he's leaving: 'America, you don't deserve me'. "


Joseph Maguire, former acting director of national intelligence (according to the Post piece) "told briefers they need to understand Trump honed his style on reality television".

Maybe. But even a nominally sane and intelligent person - especially one who had been elected president- should grasp that nuclear codes, warheads, cruise missiles and dealing with monster hurricanes and pandemics are not the fluff of reality TV.  Hence, the sane and intelligent person adapts to the new situation, especially given he took a freaking oath to defend the people and the country - from all enemies foreign and domestic. That 'Mogul"  hasn't processed that and needs people like Maguire to make excuses for him, shows how unfit he is to lead this nation.    This is especially given (ibid.):


"The briefer - always a top CIA analyst- delivers the latest secrets and best insights from the 17 intelligence agencies - and are based on the President's Daily Brief - the crown jewel of intelligence reports."


Can we now say these top class briefings- delivered to "Mogul"  - are the equivalent of casting precious pearls before an ornery swine? Yes, I believe we can. And a traitor to boot.  After more than 11 major takes (in assorted books) on "Mogul" as an unfit, reckless, willing pawn for our domestic enemies - no more is needed.  

We don't need another repeat of Bolton's (or Comey's, or Bandy X.Lee's, or Bob Woodward's, or 'ANONYMOUS et al) books to re-confirm what we already know:  the bloated, orange maggot is a threat to this nation and needs to be removed from office ASAP.   As Janice put it: "He shouldn't even get an extra two and a half months to wreak havoc after the November 3rd general election."

Indeed, we really need him gone now, but can only hope our democratic system (especially preserving the integrity of the vote) has sufficient resilience to withstand his coming attacks until November!  

See Also:
And:


And:


Jaime O'Neill's picture
Article ToolsE-mail | PrintComments (3)

by Jaime O'Neill | June 25, 2020 - 7:57am | permalink

Tuesday, February 25, 2020

OK, Dems, Let's Have No Circular Firing Squads In Tonight's Debate!

Well, tonight is the last Dem debate before the Super Tuesday contest next week and the question of the moment is whether the Democrats will again put on a circular firing squad. Effectively, they need to cease giving free propaganda and advertising material to the Repukes (RNC) and Trumpists.

In the Denver Post yesterday (p. 10A) we learned the moderates in the field are in a near frenzy, obsessed with trying to stop Bernie's march to the nomination.  They also praise their own modes of centrism and non-radicalism as the only way for the party to regain executive power. Interesting, yet if they sincerely believed that Sanders is the purported threat they claim - to the nation and the party - you'd think they'd know enough to apply game theory to the situation.  That would mean, as one Third Way Pooh- Bah (Jonathan Cowan) recently put it: "Consolidating support behind a single moderate candidate, and quickly.  By April it's too late."

But have they? Hell no!

If they did the basic math they'd see - from their respective numbers, percentages - they are continuing to divide their moderate vote thereby enabling Bernie to have a free ride (in one single lane) to the D-nomination.  So, as they whine about Bernie's alleged threats they really are doing nothing to stop him given they are not allowing any one centrist standard bearer to take over.  Each is too prideful and egoistic to bow out, especially the low rankers like Amy Klobuchar, to really enable a DNC-brand moderate to prevail. 

Tonight these losers could nearly torch any Dem chances to prevail in November if they all try to roast Sanders as expected (especially over his Castro comment,  forgetting all of Trump's reckless nonsense).  What else could they do,  take the high road and focus firepower on the REAL  threat, Trump?  Not bloody likely. They're all severely behind,  desperate and could be totally in the rear view mirror by next Wednesday. Yet by doing such torching they could well be destroying their own opportunities - say as a potential Sanders Veep pick  - as well as providing free ad fodder for the odious Trump campaign.

We also know the moderate antagonists will be egged on by a  corporate media that's doubled down on its attacks on Sanders, ever since his 60 Minutes interview with Anderson Cooper on Sunday.  Therein, he made mention of Fidel Castro's literacy program in Cuba which helped nearly a million Cubans to read and write.  And they all went batshit nuts, as on CBS this morning- when Nora O'Donnell and Gayle King expressed horror (that in a CNN town meet) he even "doubled down" on the Castro comments.

They surely didn't read yesterday's WSJ op-ed by Terry Sullivan (p. A17) who noted this about Sanders:

"It's exactly his passionate willingness to defend the crazy things he says that draws broad support. If I had a dollar for every voter I'd heard say 'I don't agree with everything Donald Trump says but I like that he has the guts to say it' I could buy Trump Tower."

But make no mistake here, this is not to conflate Trump's 'crazy' statements e.g. 'I could shoot somebody on 5th Avenue and no one would care", and "Me and Kim Jong Un are in love"  with Bernie's.  Because Bernie's remarks at least embody more than a grain of sense, for example given that literacy is a good thing, even in Cuba.

So much of the media's game, while they typically go easy on Trump and treat him as just a showman or reality TV guy, is red baiting of Bernie.  As noted by blogger Paul Street, e.g.


Some examples given by Mr. Street from the above:"

"The Atlantic, recently gave space for the right-wing pundit David Frump to call Sanders a “Marxist of the old school of dialectical materialism” for whom “class relations are foundational” and “everything else is epiphenomenon.”


At ”liberal” broadcast media’s central Stop Sanders headquarters MSNBC (hereafter “MSDNC”), veteran political talk-show host Chris Matthews channeled Joe McCarthy before the New Hampshire Democratic Primary in a bizarre tirade linking the “socialist Sanders” to the supposed threat of “executions in Central Park” if “Castro and the Reds” had “won the Cold War.”


Last week, three days before the Nevada Caucus, MSDNC’s Stephanie Ruhle had on an old friend, former Diamond Resorts CEO Stephen Cloobeck, a major Democratic Party funder, to speak from Las Vegas. Asked about one of Ruhle’s favorite topics, the menace of “socialist Bernie Sanders,” Cloobeck called Sandersan anarchist” who “would love to burn down the United States”

No, folks, you can't make this shit up.  These are our "friends" in the so -called "Left bubble", supposedly the mirror image of FOX News.  And watch to see tonight how many of the losers will try to use these tropes against Bernie. And in the same process provide  tape for Trump campaign ads, and from the mouths of fellow Dems.

Pathetic.  But that's how the Dems often tend to roll, an uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. As in 2016 when I warned that Hillary picking Tim Kaine as VP would seal her fate and the party's,  e.g.


That sealed her fate, as well as the corporo-media's singular fixation on her emails.  In this cycle we have to expect they will do the same with Bernie's Castro remarks- putting in a false equivalence to all of Trump's batshit crazy twaddle, such as claiming we are "on top of the coronavirus"  pandemic.  Oh,  and "everything will be just fine".   Which  I want to see him repeat when the DOW is in the toilet by June, thanks to the COVID-19 spreading.  Mainly because Trump hasn't done dick shit to prepare the country for what's coming - even cutting CDC funding for pandemicss.


Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Liberal Activism "Helping" Trump ? PUH-LEEZE! Get A Freakin' Grip!


"WAAAHH!  Don't badmouth the Donald mo' than I do, libruls! WAAHAHA!"

As we've seen the spectacle of the most massive protests since the 1960s Vietnam War era, it was inevitable numerous dunderheads would try to dismiss them as "astroturf" with protestors being "paid".  It never occurs to the dunderheads - even those like Gail King and Nora O'Donnell (this morning on CBS) that the protests at town halls are real, organically spawned by concerned citizens.   All of them outraged by the over stepping of the Trump bunch, especially in attempting to roll back their precious health care via the ACA (see my two previous posts). So why the hell wouldn't these rightfully outraged citizens be energized to show up and make their concerns known? But for too many dopes in the media, as well as Reeptard Reps, I guess they are only supposed to be seen and not heard.

Then there were the dozens of "Not My President" demonstrations and protests on Monday, again showing that a segment of the nation is not behind this psychopath occupying the White House. Yes, some of those events and protests were organized in advance, by Moveon.org and the Indivisible Movement, e.g.

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/karin-kamp/71133/how-the-indivisible-movement-is-fueling-resistance-to-trump


 But that doesn't make them any less valid than the Tea Party protests organized 8 years ago by "Freedom Works" and "Americans for Prosperity" - the difference being that those organizations were confected by the Koch bothers.

But it appears the sights and sounds of all these "left" protests are getting to the group I call proto-Trumpiies. This lot I define as those who insist they never ever REALLY wanted to vote for the Donald, but found the alternative too appalling to contemplate. Also, this lot would work with Liberals if only the latter would cease with the "moral Bolshevism — the belief that the liberal vision for the country was the only right one".

So writes NY Times columnist Sabrina Tavernise ('Are Liberals Helping Trump?', Feb. 18) in a political puff piece designed to assuage the Trump voters and coddle them through the harsh spectacle of energetic protests.. Sabrina notes:

"Liberals may feel energized by a surge in political activism, and a unified stance against a president they see as irresponsible and even dangerous. But that momentum is provoking an equal and opposite reaction on the right. In recent interviews, conservative voters said they felt assaulted by what they said was a kind of moral Bolshevism "

Which is the biggest load of horse pockey ever recited in a NY Times political op-ed. In fact, St. Sabrina quotes one  proto Trumpie nitwit in SC :

"I didn’t choose a side. They put me on one.”

Awwww, boo hoo hoo, sonny! The scenes of angry progressives, liberals "forced" the poor little dweezil to back Trump even more. Sounds to me like Ross Kaminsky, the talk show jock,  who (in a DPost op-ed 3 weeks ago) insisted liberals "forced him to get behind Trump and the Patriots" (he is a Broncos fan), by their "mean" protests and name -calling.

But like Kaminstky, the South Carolina twit DID choose a side when he voted for Trump. Sorry, that's how it goes. You can't now look for tranquility and comity after the fact, or be appalled at vigorous protests when you helped put an unqualified psychopath narcisist in the White House.  And don't even hand me that BS false equivalence that "we put up with Obama so why can't they put up with Trump". Oh no! Obama was a sane human who never engaged in pussy grabbing or bragged about it, or called Mexicans rapists, or made wild claims for electoral or popular vote wins he never achieved. Don't even try to go there!

Another joker quoted in the piece insisted:

"The name calling from the left is crazy.  They are complaining that Trump calls people names, but they turned into some mean people.”

Awww, bwaahahhaha! Cry me a river! In fact, the protesters are merely using apt appellations for a character beyond civil description. I might use the words "deranged, narcissistic psychopathic fucker" but even that falls short given the purview of his unhinged acts, tirades against the media, incapacity for governance and 3 a.m. tweets. And anyone who doesn't see that like this guy ("Bryce") is suffering from his own psycho-neurotic disorder. Or psychopathy, like an ignorant woman who actually compared protesters to "Islamic terrorists".  I believe she needs to be escorted to a rubber room at Bellevue and administered ECT three times a day if that is how she perceives the protests and activated Dems. She's as delusional as Trump.

The SC fool also told Ms. Tavernise, that:

"admitting you voted for Mr. Trump is a little like saying in the 1950s that you were gay."

Uh no, sonny. Admitting one was gay in the 1950s got one beaten to death, or lynched and set on fire in many places. (Like central Oklahoma, northeast Arkansas, northern FLA and western  Kansas).  Admitting you voted for Trump today just puts you in the relatively same fascist category as the anti-Semitic assholes who overturned gravestones in a Jewish cemetery outside St. Louis - or made one of the 68 bomb calls  to Jewish Community Centers.  In other words, if you voted Trump, you also by proxy voted Steve Bannon and his retinue of Breitbart  white supremacist and anti-Semitic tools.  Sorry! But hey, at least you don't get lynched!

In other words, this whole narrative about liberal protestors alienating Trump voters who "might be moderates" or moderated, is just a patent load of hog swill.  Only a low I.Q. dolt would buy into it, or any argument that these folks didn't make their choices of their own free will and cognition and - like Ross Kaninsky now - are just looking for excuses or ways to vent their spleen on liberal activists.

Do these proto-Trump dopes even know that Trump has the lowest job approval ratings of any President over the last 60 years? Probably not, because they likely just confine their attention to comics or Breitbart.com.  Enter now Ms. Tavernise's claim:

"if political action is meant to persuade people that Mr. Trump is bad for the country, then people on the fence would seems a logical place to start.. yet many seemingly persuadable conservatives say that liberals are burning bridges rather than building them.."

There is one problem with that: there is absolutely NO potential for any "bridge building" in this nation right now. We are a nation divided. Most protestors I know are not interested in persuading Trump voters (let's not call them "on the fence" if they voted Trump) because they know it's a hopeless task. People that absorb fake news, FAUX news etc. and are entranced by the antics of an authoritarian narcissist madman cannot be persuaded. To believe so is delusional. What protestors are actually about is igniting a firestorm to force political reps to look out for their interests, such as preserving workable aspects of Obamacare and not just "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". 

Monday night in her appearance on 'All In' Tavernise referenced one of the people in her anecdotal survey of 10 Trump voters in three states by saying:

"Well, the fellow in California said if Trump suddenly  ditches the health care law and there are 18 million people without health insurance, I'd be really mad at Trump and I wouldn't support him after that. That would make me really change my mind about this guy and his presidency....But liberals keep saying I am a Trump voter and I support him. But I didn't check my brain at the door."

But in fact, this guy did check his brain at the door. He did given he failed to note Trump's words during his campaign that he was going to repeal Obamacare. So how could he possibly be astounded now if he actually goes through with it?  The bollocks that seeing Trump actually ditch the healthcare law now would render him a non-backer is total bullshit and indicates he thinks the rest of us are idiots.

If Trump voters are really worried about vulnerable citizens (or themselves) losing their ACA benefits, fine, join the outcry. But don't whine and bitch that liberal activism forced you to back off and embrace Trump anyway. That doesn't compute and doesn't wash. It indicates a yen to make excuses for what they know in their heart of hearts was a god awful election choice. Now, they refuse to own up to it and the liberal protests are a reminder of that guilt.

In this respect, Erin Gloria Ryan's response to Tavernise's puff piece was spot on:

"I thought a lot of the reaction was to the headline, which was a provocative headline like headlines are supposed to be. But what I think is a really interesting question to follow up is: Are Trump supporters hurting Trump? Because the quotes that they gave Sabrina are like completely myopic. Like these people are concerned about their Facebook wall when ICE raids are breaking up families. These people are worried about whether or not to put a bumper sticker on their car when rivers are about to be poisoned. I don[t have any sympathy and I don't think many people on the left have sympathy for a guy because he can't wear his 'MAGA' hat on a dinner date."

And let's agree here that such myopia in the face of all Trump and his henchmen have done is another symptom of detachment from reality. These proto-Trump people actually see an inability to freely wear a red Trump hat on a date as more horrific than Trump's allowing coal waste to be dumped into rivers and streams. In other words, they are fucked in the head. So why would any sane liberal want to join in common cause with them, or be overly solicitous in regard to their upset feelings?

When Tavernise went on to say she's "not writing against protesting, only that she's seeing an equal but opposite reaction on the other side" , Ryan had the perfect comeback:

"Hillary won the popular vote by three million votes and the people that were spoken to in the piece were from South Carolina, California, and New York. States that did not hand Donald Trump the presidency. I think there is something to be said for persuading people who are persuadable but right now I think this is about activation, getting people organized and getting people who didn't show up to vote to actually show up to protest. Which is what they're doing."

All apt points, especially that Tavernise never stepped into any of the three 'Brexit' states (PA, MI, WI) that actually handed the election to Trump and by a mere 77,000 vote margin - about the capacity for a Packers' game at Lambeau Field.

Chris Hayes also made another very salient observation, that so much of the piece captured the distorted "enemy of my enemy" reasoning.  I.e.

"I don't like him but I hate the people that hate him more than I hate him."

Which is reasoning at about the 12 -year old,  pre-adolescent level.  Or,  as Hayes put it, a lot of the way many currently do their political reasoning.  In this case, for conservatives, "they hate liberals more than they're ever going to hate Donald Trump". And don't you dare spit on or mock the man! That's for us to do, if we choose!.

Tavernise again:

"Well, yeahh....and again, this is among these moderates, they feel that there is this contempt that is flowing in their general direction. That is imbibed through their social media, hrough everything that is happening everywhere - online, and to a certain extent with the protests. I think there's obviously a lot of polarization- conservatives hates liberals, liberals hate conservatives. All I'm saying it these folks aren't flag wavers for Trump and we do need a middle ground, we do need a middle space and we do need moderates,"

Except that I take Jim Hightower's quote more to heart:

"The only things in the middle of the road are yellow lines and dead skunks."

Even Hayes in his response pointed out the "middle ground" is vanishing if it hasn't already. Much of that can be traced to the Tea Party and the Koch brothers not to mention the rise of Trump. So to waylay the left now for reinforcing its own soldiers and activists is kind of like "we can do that but not you" thinking.

Or to quote Erin Ryan, "the reaction on the left is basically 'cry me a river'.  Yeppers, and don't shed your tears on us, after the shit you pulled with the Tea Party protests back in 2009.

Incredibly, Tavernise  in her piece quotes a "registered Democrat" Ann O’Connell, 72, (a retired administrative assistant in Syracuse)  who voted for Trump and whined. “I feel like we are in some kind of civil war right now. I know people don’t like to use those terms. But I think it’s scary.”

Well, we ARE in a kind of a civil war, which is going to get a lot more heated - resembling scenes of what we saw last month at UC Berkeley (when protestors shut down the appearance of pedophile defender Milo Yiannopoulis) if those like O'Connell and the other imps interviewed in Tavernise's piece don't get their reality glasses back on and their heads straight - to see what the rest of us in the sane contingent see. (Including two psychiatrists interviewed last night on 'The Last Word', who noted Trump is a "paranoid psychopathic narcissist who's divorced from reality" and  is  "as sick mentally as one can get in winning a presidency".)

The worst Trumpie coddling by far, worse than Tavernise, has been WaPo hack Marc A. Thiessen ('The Left's Hypocrisy On Trump's 'Enemy of the American People Comment' 0) At least Tavernise tried to show some balance in her coddling of the Trumpies (at least in her TV appearance), while Thiessen showed little or none. He hyped the "venom spewed by the left at anti-Trump rallies" but said nothing of the venom spewed by Trump - which as we've seen has now given rise to hundreds of hate crimes. That includes the murder of an Indian techie in Olathe, KS by a hard core Trump supporter babbling his same rhetoric. Can this fuckup Thiessen point to ONE incident where the "hateful Left" has vandalized one Jewish gravestone, or burned a Mosque (as in Tampa last week) or shot an Indian student dead (mistaken for a middle Eastern person)?   No? Then don't even attempt to inject false equivalence!

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-boehlert/71356/enough-already-the-ny-times-needs-to-stop-coddling-trump-voters


And:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/bill-berkowitz/71316/neo-nazis-are-rejoicing-at-trumps-stance-toward-anti-semitism


And:

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/02/21/trump-has-the-media-crying-all-the-way-to-the-bank/