Trump’s February — a mixed bag

Alex Jones spoke with Roger Stone several times in the final week of February 2017, giving us a fine set of soundbites on various topics.

On January 10, President Donald Trump appointed Robert F Kennedy Jr to chair a bipartisan vaccine safety commission. (If the comments on Health Impact News are anything to go by, the medical profession and Big Pharma are sweating.)

Roger Stone said:

Trump’s courage on the vaccine issue is extraordinary … There has been a cover up at the Center for Disease Control … This is a legitimate health problem.

Conversation turned to Trump’s appointees. Andy Puzder had withdrawn from being nominated as Secretary of Labor. The official version was that he did not think he would receive enough Senate votes for a confirmation. However, he is a friend of Reince Priebus and the unofficial version, according to Stone earlier in February, was that Puzder feared Priebus might be forced to resign. Therefore, he did not want to lose his main sponsor and ally.

By the third week in February, Alex Acosta was the new nominee for Labor. Stone said Acosta:

is another Reince special … Truly problematic … By the way, I do not believe the president has ever met Acosta … A simple Google search would indicate [a connection to Jeffrey Epstein] … This makes little sense, even on a Cuban-American scale.

Acosta’s Senate hearing will be on Wednesday, March 15.

As for Stone’s ‘simple Google search’, he is not wrong. There are loads of articles in Big Media and elsewhere. Acosta should withdraw. I’m surprised Trump is allowing him as a nominee, unless he wants to get him in, then fire him as part of draining the swamp. LawNewz posted a good article on February 16 (emphasis in the original). Acosta:

… was the U.S. Attorney in charge of the Southern District of Florida from 2006 through 2009, and oversaw a sweetheart deal for Jeffrey Epstein. Yes, that Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted billionaire pedophile, who allegedly victimized dozens of underage girls.  Here’s what you might not know about the case, and it raises some serious questions about how Acosta handled himself under intense pressure from a well-connected billionaire.

In 2007, federal prosecutors, under Acosta’s leadership, quietly entered into a secret non-prosecution agreement with the billionaire which ensured that Epstein and his ‘co-conspirators’ would not be prosecuted federally in exchange for Epstein’s guilty plea to state charges. Basically, Epstein got a slap on the wrist and served 13 months in a Florida prison and home detention for solicitation and procurement of minors for prostitution.

As a result of this “sweetheart” deal, the federal government is now facing litigation with several alleged sexual abuse victims of billionaire Jeffrey Epstein who sued the government back in 2008. Their claims center around how federal prosecutors handled the investigation into Epstein’s alleged victimization of underage girls. The case reveals how federal prosecutors came to this deal with the billionaire, reportedly ignoring the rights of the alleged victims in the process.  Recent filings in the case also raise legitimate questions about what else prosecutors would have discovered if the federal investigation had not come to an abrupt end with the promise of no prosecution by the feds.

Also on February 16, ABC News reported that Acosta had an explanation:

In a 2011 letter, Acosta defended the deal and accused Epstein’s defense lawyers of a “a year-long assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors.”

Acosta argued that while critics think the prosecution should have been tougher, and “evidence that has come to light since 2007 may encourage that view,” if more evidence was available to them at the time perhaps “the outcome may have been different.”

“Our judgment in this case, based on the evidence known at the time, was that it was better to have a billionaire serve time in jail, register as a sex offender and pay his victims restitution than risk a trial with a reduced likelihood of success,” Acosta wrote.

Hmm.

Stone ended his discussion of Acosta with this:

All of this will be a sideshow no one cares about.

Perhaps. It depends on whether the Trump administration investigates paedophilia and human trafficking involving high-ranking Democrats. The Left and the media would not hesitate to say that Acosta played his part with a lenient sentence for Epstein, then say that Epstein and Trump were good friends.

Continuing a business-oriented discussion, Stone talked about Trump’s meeting with SME owners at the White House. Polling confirmed that small businesses give Trump the thumbs-up. Stone said SMEs:

are pretty high on Trump … I give [these polls] a lot of credibility.

Stone then talked about the Left and the media:

The Left still thinks the mainstream media have all the power. What they don’t understand is that this is a whole new ball game.

[The Left] will have to be ignominiously defeated.

By the way, my Facebook account was closed yesterday [February 19] … I violated none of their rules … My lawyers are already in touch.

Stone blamed David Brock for that.

Stone also said that Trump is acting over the objections from ‘half of his advisors’ and has been the most active president ‘on the phones’ since LBJ.

Jones and Stone spoke again on Monday, February 27. The news of the day was that there is no proof that Russia tampered with the US election in November 2016.

Stone was over the moon, as the Democrats had dragged his name through the mud for months. He told Jones he was on his way from Miami to Washington DC to meet with his lawyers.

He told Jones that this controversy was:

a reverse Watergate in many ways.

He reminded listeners that ‘all’ his private correspondence was searched:

a fishing expedition …

I debunk the entire Russian fraud right in my book. This is the new McCarthyism.

He said no one found anything in his correspondence, his phone calls or his emails. Borrowing Spiro Agnew’s words from the early 1970s, he said:

All you’ve got are these nattering nabobs of negativism who made all this stuff up from the get go.

Stone is also keen to pursue the New York Times and the Washington Post, particularly the latter.

On Tuesday, February 28, Trump gave his first Presidential Address to Congress. It was a magnificent speech which elicited many standing ovations from the Republicans. The Democrats remained seated. It didn’t matter what special guest in the audience that Trump introduced — even the Navy SEAL’s widow, Carryn Owens. Her husband Ryan was killed in the recent mission in Yemen. (That, by the way, was already scheduled to go when Obama was still president. General Mattis reviewed it and Trump signed the order. However, someone somewhere knew something and leaked it to the enemy, who were prepared for the Americans upon arrival.)

Trump spoke beautifully. Even Obama’s former advisor Van Jones (see more in the preceding link) said that Trump became president at that moment.

Stone told Jones:

This is the Donald Trump I have known and loved … He was bold and factual and he has not backed off from what he promised … He will revive this country.

However, that will not be without opposition:

His problem will be the establishment who like the status quo … [Re internal leaks] you would not have that problem if you appointed people who supported Donald J Trump.

Stone concluded:

I did like ‘put aside petty points’ …

He thought Trump’s short weekly addresses were timely and thematic:

Donald J Trump is scoring points

with his mentions of Black History Month and the sad news that week that Jewish cemeteries had been desecrated.

In closing, it’s a shame that more Americans do not appreciate a president who is trying to do all the right things. None of my centrist or libertarian friends from the US like him. The comment I hear most often in conversation or in written correspondence is ‘I wish he would keep his mouth shut’. It’s a pity.

Personally, I think they are afraid that, in cleaning things up, a firestorm (figuratively speaking) will have to take place in the process. Therefore, they would prefer the status quo, corrupt as they know it to be, to any sort of upheaval. They don’t want things stirred up if it means going through a year or two of tension and uncertainty.

How sad that two generations of relative peace have given us such a big bunch of softies.

11 comments for “Trump’s February — a mixed bag

  1. Voice of Reason
    March 12, 2017 at 6:58 pm

    It’s true that the health care professionals are concerned about Kennedy and his panel. It’s not because there is an issue. They are concerned that the ignorant politicians will, yet again, do something very stupid, and precipitate a massive outbreak of what used to be the #1 killer of children in the US, and was officially eradicated. Or perhaps we could have polio back?

    • March 13, 2017 at 12:54 am

      Thank you for the comment.

      It’s not because of polio, rather MMR:

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/01/10/the-facts-about-vaccines-autism-and-robert-f-kennedy-jr-s-conspiracy-theory/?utm_term=.ce20cc6431f7

      ‘The debunked claim that there is a causal relationship between vaccines and autism largely stems from the late 1990s. At the time, autism diagnoses had been increasing, and doctors didn’t know why.’

      It’s nothing to do with polio, unless you can show otherwise — with a link.

      • March 13, 2017 at 7:08 am

        ‘At the time, autism diagnoses had been increasing, and doctors didn’t know why.’

        Do they know why now?

        • March 13, 2017 at 12:44 pm

          No, they don’t. This is why Trump has set up the vaccine safety commission so they can find out. It is also why the medical profession and Big Pharma are shaking in their boots.

          I have always thought MMR has had something to do with the increase in autism, which was relatively unknown until the 1990s. Who is saying MMR is ‘safe’? Doctors and Big Pharma.

      • Voice of Reason
        March 13, 2017 at 1:01 pm

        I referred to polio only because it was the disease (other than smallpox) which people accept was eliminated here by vaccines.

        The #1 killer was Rubella.

    • Bob H
      March 13, 2017 at 12:09 pm

      “#1 killer of children in the US (and uk)”

      Today that would of course not be polio, but abortion.

      • March 13, 2017 at 12:45 pm

        Thank you! So accurate and so overlooked.

  2. March 12, 2017 at 8:02 pm

    The health care might be the maker or breaker.

  3. Distant Relative
    March 13, 2017 at 6:46 pm

    Here’s some info on MMR/Autism link and alleged fraudulent research http://ahrp.org/monumental-betrayal-of-public-trust-evidence-of-cdc-malfeasance-research-fraud/ A search for “Dr Andrew Wakefield” will also bring up more info regarding his findings. He was accused of being anti-vaccines but he was pro separate vaccines rather than the 3-in-1 MMR. There is also a documentary “VAXXED” which is occasionally made free to view on YT which relates the whole process of the fraud.

    • March 14, 2017 at 1:23 am

      Thank you. Yes, those of us commenting on here are familiar with Dr Wakefield’s research.

      Thank you very much for the link, which is a great find! Everyone should read it. I was going to excerpt some of it, but found too much to copy and paste here.

      It is almost certain that children of the elites have separate vaccinations while everyone else’s children are forced to have MMR. Even middle class people who can afford to pay for separate vaccinations have problems finding a doctor who will administer them.

      I will look up your video recommendation.

Comments are closed.