The End of Week Circulars for June 04, 2017

These Legs are for Collusion

She’s guaranteed herself a second interview with Putin.

But what will she wear to the rematch?

41022eb500000578-0-image-m-8_1496347940159

Anti-Trump Proves Worthy of Comey’s Contempt

We interpreted Comey’s actions as FBI Director as most consistent with a strategy to build an obstruction of justice case against Trump by goading him into making a series of borderline statements that, collectively, made up obstruction.

We also believed the universe of anti-Trump forces were kept in the dark about Comey’s exact plans and that, by keeping anti-Trumpers in the dark, Comey was demonstrating contempt for anti-Trump.  Even Comey’s deputy was out of the loop given that his deputy testified publicly to Congress that he had not seen evidence of interference into the investigation by Trump’s administration.

As it turns out, anti-Trump forces are still deserving of his contempt.

The reporting on the Russia investigation is still anticipating that an impeachable offense will emerge from it.

What they don’t realize is that, by firing Comey after just four months, Trump has ruined Comey’s strategy.  He left the FBI Directorship too soon for him to accumulate enough private statements by Trump to construe them as anything more than “pressure” or “inappropriate”.

But anti-Trump has not realized Comey’s gambit is over.

Comey was the most dangerous actor against Trump because Comey was the only person in the anti-Trump nexus with an attention span greater than a moth.

With Comey out of the way, anti-Trump would be better off moving to some other strategy instead of clinging in desperation to a strategy that is non-operational in Comey’s absence.

That anti-Trump still hasn’t figured this out proves Comey’s judgment of them as easily manipulable stooges was right all.

The Paris Accord Warrants Impeachment

Obama’s impeachment.

The Paris accord was clearly a treaty; treaties are mandated by the Constitution to be put to the Senate for ratification.

Instead of doing his Constitutional duty by sending the Paris accord to the Senate for a vote, Obama tried to give it force of law without Senate approval.

This blatantly illegal action by Obama clearly warranted impeachment.  Fortunately for him the rest of the elite followed the “Comey rule” of law enforcement which mandates that Democrats are not allowed to be legally punished for breaking the law.

Paris is Burning, Paris will be Burning

Trump burned the Paris accords.

Before Trump sent them up in flames, Macron preemptively retaliated against Trump’s withdrawal with an aggressive handshake.

Macron should worry about Trump.  After two recent ISIS terrorist attacks in Britain it won’t be long before another mass-casualty strike is made against France.

When ISIS comes to shake Macron’s hand we’ll see how well he handles a real enemy on camera.  We expect not even the Western media will be able to spin his response to terrorism as a macho staredown won by Macron.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “The End of Week Circulars for June 04, 2017”

  1. “She’s guaranteed herself a second interview with Putin.
    But what will she wear to the rematch?”

    This is the kind of picture that would have benefited from Lawrence Auster’s critical eye.

    I can’t help feeling that, as a man, there’s a ‘damned if you do/damned if you don’t’ aspect to a woman wearing such revealing clothing in a professional setting like this. As the viewer, we are all amusingly aware that the men will be turned on by what she is wearing. We also know that from a political point of view it will be viewed as impolite or sexist for men to draw attention to the fact in any way. So you end up with a kind of ‘elephant in the room’ situation where the viewer is kind of laughing at the cucked, castrated men who are not free to notice the unavoidable. From a woman’s point of view, her right to wear such clothes is couched in the language of victimhood and the powerless. In reality, she is exercising a power over them which we cannot even name.

    In short, ‘women being women’ (ie wearing what they want) has to men ‘men not being men’ (as if it makes no difference to us whether a woman is naked or clothed.

    This is Putin, not Rasputin: no second interview without a burqa.

    Like

  2. From a woman’s point of view, her right to wear such clothes is couched in the language of victimhood and the powerless. In reality, she is exercising a power over them which we cannot even name.

    The easiest way to deal with this sort of nonsense – a nonsense I admit having more moderately hedonistic tolerance for than you, or especially Larry Auster – is to just not take attractive women under 50 seriously.

    This is Putin, not Rasputin: no second interview without a burqa.

    I’m not sure Putin minds that much either. TV presenters in Russia also show off their assets with little complaint from the Russian government.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s