Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Online freakout over Sioux Falls airport scene | Main | Yet another dumb crook »

CNN eats its own words

Posted by David Hardy · 25 October 2017 05:13 PM

Amusing. Six days ago, CNN editorialized:

"President Donald Trump sent this tweet on Thursday morning: "Workers of firm involved with the discredited and Fake Dossier take the 5th. Who paid for it, Russia, the FBI or the Dems (or all)?"

This is, of course, somewhat common fare by this point in the arc of Trump's presidency....

The bigger issue -- at least to me -- is that Trump is suggesting that the dossier itself was funded by some combination of a foreign power, the opposition political party and a federal law enforcement agency.
It's easy to roll your eyes at the very suggestion and dismiss that idea as just Trump being Trump. "You guys always take him literally," Trump's supporters will say. "You shouldn't!"

OK. But here's the thing: President Trump is, um, the President. Which means he is held to the same standard every past president is held to. And by that standard, this tweet is crazy.

Unfortunately, lots and lots of Trump backers will believe this stuff solely by dint of the fact that Trump tweeted it. And that, of course, is Trump's goal. Muddy the waters and discredit the ongoing investigations into what Russia did in the 2016 election. Make the whole thing into a partisan witch hunt.

But, there is no plausible scenario by which what Trump suggested this morning -- a wide-scale conspiracy involving three separate actors across federal agencies and continents -- actually happened. That we can't (won't?) agree on that seemingly obvious fact is troubling."

7 Comments | Leave a comment

Harold Ancell | October 25, 2017 6:18 PM | Reply

Maybe the world is crazy?

Because we now know the FBI started paying the guy who came up with it a few weeks before the election. Leaving out only "Russia", and would you really be surprised if, during its year plus existence (it was started during the primary in September 2015), someone in the Russian government contributed to it?

Cliff | October 25, 2017 7:51 PM | Reply

To the question "Who paid for it, Russia, the FBI or the Dems (or all)?"

The FBI did pay, the Democrat Party did pay, the only question is did Russia also pay for it? I and others suspect while they may not have paid for it they were responsible for some of the information but then again they very well may have paid just for different reasons as the other two.

The only person who mentions a conspiracy between all the actors mentioned above is yourself. A conspiracy means there was a meeting of the minds. Did you consider that they may have acted independently of the others and without this meeting of the minds and conspiracy that Trump just may be correct?

Your addition of a conspiracy into this issue is more crazy than Trumps tweet...

Joe replied to comment from Cliff | October 26, 2017 9:18 AM | Reply

Cliff, he's quoting the CNN article, David's only words in the above are "Amusing. Six days ago, CNN editorialized:" All the stuff between the quotes is the CNN article he linked.

Old Guy | October 26, 2017 7:24 PM | Reply

actually the title is a little misleading, CNN eats its own words, in that I don't think CNN has taken back that statement from 6 days ago. You would think that maybe they would learn something by now but no.

Fyooz | October 26, 2017 9:34 PM | Reply

So now who do we conclude is (was, all along) Putin's c*ck holster?

Mark-1 | October 27, 2017 10:32 AM | Reply

“No plausible scenario”. Did the person who wrote this also say “no plausible path” to T’s nomination.
Dumber than whale shit

Cliff replied to comment from Joe | October 28, 2017 9:15 AM | Reply

CNN eats its own words and Cliff also eats his own words. After rereading you are absolutely correct. My apologies to Mr. Hardy...

Leave a comment