Maddow, Kornacki propagandize the tribe!

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2014

Becoming the thing we oppose: Yesterday morning, a fascinating report appeared on the front page of the New York Times.

The report concerns an impending review of the Fort Lee lane closings—a review of events from Team Christie itself!

As he started, Michael Barbaro offered the basics:
BARBARO (3/24/14): With his office suddenly engulfed in scandal over lane closings at the George Washington Bridge, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey two months ago summoned a pair of top defense lawyers from an elite law firm to the State House and asked them to undertake an extensive review of what had gone wrong.

Now, after 70 interviews and at least $1 million in legal fees to be paid by state taxpayers, that review is set to be released, and according to people with firsthand knowledge of the inquiry, it has uncovered no evidence that the governor was involved in the plotting or directing of the lane closings.

The review is the first of multiple inquiries into a scandal that has jeopardized Mr. Christie’s political future. It will be viewed with intense skepticism, not only because it was commissioned by the governor but also because the firm conducting it, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, has close ties to the Christie administration and the firm’s lawyers were unable to interview three principal players in the shutdowns, including Bridget Anne Kelly, the governor’s former deputy chief of staff.
According to Barbaro, this review “will be viewed with intense skepticism,” for a perfectly obvious reason—it was commissioned by Christie himself!

The review was commissioned by Christie himself. But as he continued, Barbaro listed a fascinating set of claims about what the review will include.

These claims may turn out to be oversold or bogus. But if its authors can be believed, it sounds like the impending review could contain real information, based upon new sources:
BARBARO: Much about the review remains secret, and Mr. Mastro declined to describe any specific content before its release. But it is expected to lay out a detailed narrative of the events, motivations and communications leading up to the closing of the lanes, which snarled traffic in Fort Lee, N.J., for thousands of commuters last September.

According to those familiar with the report, it will also address what and when Mr. Christie and his aides knew about the lane closings; analyze the structure, practices and culture of the Christie administration that contributed to the scandal; and issue pointed recommendations to prevent such conduct.

[...]

Among the issues covered, according to people familiar with the report, is the widespread use by Mr. Christie’s aides of private email accounts to conduct government business. The report is also expected to offer a tough assessment of the intergovernmental affairs unit inside the governor’s office, where Ms. Kelly worked.

Over the past two months, a dozen lawyers from Gibson Dunn questioned more than 70 people, including the governor and the lieutenant governor, every current member of Mr. Christie’s senior staff and top New Jersey officials at the Port Authority. The lawyers also gained access to government and private email accounts of key current and former administration officials and obtained records of their incoming and outgoing phone calls and text messages.

The investigation’s most significant obstacle was the lack of access to the three figures at the center of the lane closings—Ms. Kelly, the author of the infamous “time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee” email; Bill Stepien, the governor’s former aide and campaign manager; and David Wildstein, a Christie ally at the Port Authority—who all declined to be interviewed.

But the lawyers had access to a wide range of documents, including thousands of emails left on government servers by current and former employees like Ms. Kelly, whom Mr. Christie fired in January, and Mr. Stepien, who left the administration in 2013.
Wow! Will this review include real information about the “motivations leading up to the closing of the lanes?”

Obviously, we don’t know the answer to that. But it sounds like that could be possible, given the materials to which the authors say they had access.

That could all be piddle, of course. The review could be a big dud.

But based on what we read in the Times, we felt eager to see this forthcoming review. Then, we got ourselves thoroughly brainwashed by Rachel Maddow last night.

Maddow’s segment on this topic was pure propaganda. It’s a great example of the way people sometimes turn into the thing they so bravely oppose.

Maddow’s segment included an interview with Steve Kornacki. In effect, the pair cited alternate paragraphs from the Times, picking and choosing what we the rubes could be trusted to hear.

Viewers were being preconditioned to reject whatever the review may contain.

First, Maddow snarked by herself for a while (excerpt below). As always, she managed to mention the daughter of one of the evildoers.

This was the start of the interview. To watch the whole segment, click here:
MADDOW (3/24/14): Nobody expected Governor Christie’s internal review to do anything other than exonerate him, I think.

KORNACKI: Yes.

MADDOW: Is there anything that we have learned about this review, about its importance or its relevant context, that we didn’t know before?

KORNACKI: I don’t think so. We didn’t even learn when exactly it’s coming out, which would be a useful piece of information. But they’ve been saying for a while now “soon.” And the new report today says “soon.” So we didn’t even learn that.
Truly, that was pathetic. (Just for the record, the troubling word “soon” didn’t appear in the Times.)

That was pretty pitiful. But as Kornacki and Maddow continued, the agitprop only got worse:
KORNACKI (continuing directly): I think the two relevant things to look for here—and there’s no indication of what’s in the report about this—is, does this report offer some kind of, like, unified theory of, “OK, here was the motive, here’s how it was carried out, why it was carried out, who exactly knew?” And does the report implicate anybody who’s not previously come up in all this? Is there a new scapegoat? Is there someone else for Christie to point to and say, “This person failed in their job and I’m going to disassociate myself from this person?”

So those are the two things to look for in this report when it comes out. But there’s no indication that the New York Times even saw the report.

MADDOW: Right.

KORNACKI: So they don’t know what’s in it. There’s no indication that they got any real explicit description of the contents of the report. There’s broad assertions here in the story. So I don’t think we really learned anything new today. We’re just going to have to wait until we see the report.

MADDOW: So what the New York Times front paged is what somebody wants them to print about the report without seeing the report themselves.
Just a guess. The authors didn’t want the Times saying, in paragraph 3, that the report “will be viewed with intense skepticism.”

Rachel basically made it sound like the Times didn’t say that. According to her, the Times front paged what somebody wanted them to print.

Obviously, “we’re going to have to wait until we see the report,” as Kornacki said. Obviously, the New York Times hasn’t seen the report.

But according to the Times, the report’s authors explicitly said that the report will be able to explain “motivations,” based on the documents to which they say they had access.

As Maddow and Kornacki snarked and complained, they failed to mention any of that. Kornacki didn’t just skip the claim about motivation—he made it sound like motivation wasn’t mentioned in the Times report.

Pitifully, Kornacki went on to report “the suspicion” around Trenton that “there’s an effort here by the Christie camp to sort of roll this out in two phases,” with a preferred headline preceding the actual report.

Duh! Everything gets rolled out that way! And everybody knows it.

Go ahead—watch the tape of that segment. You’re watching an attempt at preconditioning, an act of propaganda.

Team Christie’s report may turn out to be an useless, oversold dud; we’ll have to wait to see what it contains. Last night, though, Maddow convinced us that she has become the type of con artist she always pretends to oppose.

Go ahead—give it a look. You’re being propagandized. Truly, you could have watched Sean!

You may be getting propagandized if: You may be getting propagandized if your favorite cable star hands you piddle like this:
MADDOW: The Gibson, Dunn partner heading the investigation calls it a “comprehensive and exhaustive” look at the scandal.

For the record, he may call it “comprehensive and exhaustive,” but I should tell you, it did not include the investigators for that review speaking with Bridget Kelly, the Christie deputy chief of staff who apparently ordered the lane closures; David Wildstein, who apparently carried out the lane closures; Bill Baroni, appears to have led the cover-up effort about the lane closures; or even Mark Sokolich, the mayor of Fort Lee, New Jersey, who reportedly was the target of the lane closure scheme in the first place.

They didn’t talk to any of those folks. But still, it’s being described as “comprehensive and exhaustive.”
Good grief! They didn’t even talk to Mayor Sokolich!

“They didn’t talk to any of those folks,” the grumbling multimillionaire said. She forgot to note what the Times reported—all four people she named had refused to be interviewed.

Guess what? If they continue to plead the Fifth, it may be that no one will ever interview Wildstein, Kelly or Stepien. Will the failure to “talk to any of those folks” be listed as an objection to future reports from other entities?

Rachel was trying to get in your head! By now, we’d say that she has become the person she bravely opposes.

The report may turn out to be a dud. But Rachel wants you thinking that before you get to peruse it.

39 comments:

  1. OMB (Quick Ma! Clickbait!)

    We are pleased to see BOB has material which will generate more than the few stifled yawns his weak weekend and early week posts produced among those he often calls the dumbest of earth's dumb...the blog commentariat.

    We shall participate once we view the screws loosen themselves for ourselves. Our own Maddow viewing was interrupted by a press conference on The Plane.

    In the meantime we refer readers to the previous post, which you may have skipped because many of you, like the Children of the OTC, don't really care about black kids. In it we continue our masterly comparison of BOB to Maddowby. Or is it RABOB to Somerdow? We don't know.

    KZ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it Rachel or is it Bob?

      Wow! Will this review include real information about the “motivations leading up to the closing of the lanes?”

      Obviously, we don’t know the answer to that. But it sounds like that could be possible, given the materials to which the authors say they had access.

      That could all be piddle, of course. The review could be a big dud.

      But based on what we read in the Times, we felt eager to see this forthcoming review. Then, we got ourselves thoroughly brainwashed last night.

      Delete
  2. "The report may turn out to be a dud."

    Are you fking kidding me Bob? Really, for the love of god are you that credulous?

    This "report" has no credibility. None. Zip. Nada.

    ***************
    A few days later, Nixon's Press Secretary, Ron Ziegler, described the event as "a third rate burglary attempt". On August 29, at a news conference, President Nixon stated Dean had conducted a thorough investigation of the matter, when in fact Dean had not conducted any investigation at all. Nixon also said, "I can say categorically that... no one in the White House staff, no one in this Administration, presently employed, was involved in this very bizarre incident." On September 15, Nixon congratulated Dean, saying, "The way you've handled it, it seems to me, has been very skillful, because you—putting your fingers in the dikes every time that leaks have sprung here and sprung there."[11]
    ****************************

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "According to those familiar with the report, it will also address what and when Mr. Christie and his aides knew about the lane closings; analyze the structure, practices and culture of the Christie administration that contributed to the scandal; and issue pointed recommendations to prevent such conduct."

      All, of course, exonerating Christie himself because there is "no evidence" that he was directly "involved in the plotting or directing of the lane closings."

      Whatever happened to "The buck stops here"? It does "seem" -- to use a favorite Somerby weasle word -- that Bridget Kelly is getting thrown under the bus, and this report will "seem" to describe her as a rogue deputy chief of staff, doing naughty things behind the governor's back.

      Yep, try to sell that fairy tale.

      Delete
    2. mm, I know this calls for specualtion on your part. The Times article says the report will "analyze the structure, practices and culture of the Christie administration that contributed to the scandal."

      Do you think lawyers are trained to analyze structure, practices, and culture of governmental organizations?
      If you think they had to bring in expert from disciplines involving those areas of analysis, do you think New Jersey taxpayers forked over $650 per hour for that extra help?

      Delete
    3. Sorry, I do not see the motiviation of a major law firm to get sideways with the truth on this. The firm has way too much to lose from a reputational standpoint with respect to all of its other clients to issue a bogus report.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous @ 3:37 pm

      That's pretty funny. Tell that to Vinson and Elkins, law firm of Howard Baker, John Connally, and Alberto Gonzalez, to name a few.

      In 2001, V&E received negative attention for its role as legal advisor to Enron, the failed Houston-based energy company. During the years following Enron's collapse, Vinson & Elkins was the subject of a number of claims, and its representation of Enron endured scrutiny by news organizations, the U.S. Congress, and federal agencies. Vinson & Elkins was voluntarily dismissed without payment in January 2007 from the last significant litigation involving the Enron collapse. The law firm agreed to pay $30 million to the failed energy company's bankruptcy estate to avoid a lawsuit claiming it aided in the company's downfall.

      Delete
    5. Anon 1:57, I have no idea what you're asking.


      This is the most remarkable exhibition of political chutzpah I can ever recall.

      From the same Barbaro report in the Times;

      ***
      Besides the 12 lawyers who worked on the internal investigation, a group of Gibson Dunn lawyers is assigned to respond to the broad subpoenas issued by the Legislature and the United States attorney’s office for records from Mr. Christie’s office.
      ***

      So let me get this straight. The very same law firm that conducted this thorough investigation is also handling the legal defense of all the people they investigated.

      Fucking lawyers. They really do rule us all don't they.

      Delete
    6. No. But we're all billable. And many are gullible.

      Delete
    7. mm Many of the documents they reviewed for the report have also been subpoenaed by the Legisalture and the U.S. Attorney.

      The fun thing will be to see if they bill three times for each document.

      Delete
    8. "The fun thing will be to see if they bill three times for each document."

      That's funny. Do you have any doubt? Hey, what the hell. It's only taxpayer money.

      Delete
    9. @ 3:37 said "I do not see the motiviation of a major law firm to get sideways with the truth on this."

      I don't know about motivation. I thought it was the job of law firms to turn the truth sideways so no matter which way it falls, their clients can run out of harm's way.

      Delete
    10. mm and anons, as an admitted "fucking lawyer" I agree that your skepticism in advance about the report is warranted, but I don't believe you can opine about the report with any authority until it is published.

      Delete
    11. AC / MA,

      You mean the investigation of Chris Christie by Chris Christie? You mean the report written by a woman who vacationed with Christie and his family? OK, thank you for your opinion.

      Delete
    12. AC/MA

      I can't speak for all Anons or even AlAnon. However, anyone who needs to spend a million of the taxpayers money on outside legal counsel to find out who on his staff cut off access to toll lanes is incompetent as an administrator and untrustworthy with public funds. Anyone who has a million dollars to hire lawyers and has them declare him guilty is incompetent, untrustworth and a complete fool.

      Delete
    13. I said you guys have the right to be skeptical. I'm skeptical too. But until you read the report, it's premature to pass judgment on it.

      Delete
    14. I cherish my creator endowed right to skepticism. I thought I was exercising my first amendment right to dump on the guy who commissioned the report, not the report itself.

      Delete
    15. AC/MA,

      A report written by the same law firm that is handling the legal defense of the persons it supposedly investigated?

      Not even an attempt at a pretense of a fig leaf to conceal the colossal blatant in-your-face F.U. conflict of interest. These people don't believe they have to play by the rules the rest of us must follow.

      And we're supposed to maintain an objective open mind after the conclusion is already leaked by "someone familiar with the report" to the front page of the NYTimes? Why? Because they say, "trust us". The people who just pocketed over a million dollars to read emails that belong to the public and interview people on the public payroll?

      Delete
  3. Bob, did you read this line from the Times' report?

    "Much about the review remains secret, and Mr. Mastro declined to describe any specific content before its release."

    Just, maybe, perhpas, this is why Kornacki said we have to wait for the report to come out?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course not! Kornacki is a member of the Not-Bob Tribe, so he can only be one of two things-- incredibly lazy and overpaid or wildly dishonest and overpaid.

      Silly question.

      Delete
    2. Kornacki? A member of the Not-Bob Tribe? Surely you got the wrong Kornacki pal.

      We were first amazed by Kornacki in April 2010. Often, Kornacki seems to be the only one who knows what he’s talking about. As many other people have noted, Kornacki has stood out in his handling of the Fort Lee matter. When he discusses New Jersey politics, he rather plainly seems to know what he’s talking about. You rarely see that on cable news channels—a person who knows what he’s talking about! (S)imply the press corps' most valuable player concerning the Fort Lee fandango.

      Delete
    3. That was the Old Kornacki, and that story is no longer operative.

      We now have the New Kornacki, one who gladly "propagandizes" with the vile, evil, overpaid clown.

      Delete
    4. Is Anonymous at 5:00 actually Bob?

      Delete
    5. Everything but the first line was Bob.

      Delete
  4. Who has written/spoken more about Fort Lee - Maddow or Bob?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who has more loose screws?

      Delete
  5. OMB (BOB Propagandizes Himself, Tribe!)

    Part 1

    Being That Which We Describe: This morning a preposterous post appeared on the internet. The New York Times wrote an article. BOB did not call it fuzzy, factually faulty, or flawed. That is because, though the article was nothing more than the mundane conduit for a leak, BOB chose to characterize it as "fascinating" in contrast to his foil, the wicked "crazy" queen of cable witch hunting, Rachel Maddow.

    In essence, the New York Times allowed itself to be used again by governmental insiders seeking to leak their version of a report in advance of its official release. The article would have ordinarily been savaged by a once admired watchdog of media malfeasance for obvious shortcomings.

    Instead, the puttering PeePaw of Posting chose to attack the woman he has called the Perspiring Pimp of Piddle for performing something of the role he once performed.

    In doing so he has proven that self-exhoneration is not limited to Christie. BOB must prove again it was not he, but Maddow who has been wrong all along when it comes to Bridgegate. In doing so he tries to makes Maddow the foil. He proves instead he is the fool.

    The Times is "fascinating" sez the OTB in serving up a leaked slice of Christie propaganda funded by the taxpayers. BOB, who once called the expenditure of New Jersey taxpayer dollars on an unnecessary but legal special election a crime, now rolls over for this advance sniffing of the high dollar Christie laundry basket. Instead BOB tries to put the propaganda label on the one television commentator who has been foremost in covering this story BOB called "ginned up" before it actually blew up in Christie's ambitious political lap.

    We can hardly wait for Part 2. And for "dumb rubes and losers" to call us troll.

    KZ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It will be interesting to see if the "report" actually makes Christie stick to a specific timeframe concerning when he first knew and when he stopped knowing it.

      He has been rather vague, claiming it was through press reports that began on Sept. 13, then later saying it wasn't until Oct. 1 when the WSJ reported Foye's e-mail.

      It was then that he dispatched his two top people to New York to find out what was going on, well before Baroni testified that it was a "fairness study."

      And it wasn't until January that he learned his deputy chief of staff ordered the whole thing with an e-mail to his non-childhood non-friend.

      Meanwhile, we still have the famous letter from the famous non-friend's attorney, saying they are sitting on "evidence" that Christie knew about the "traffic problems" while they were happening. Plus the infamous photo of all of them yukking it up on Sept. 11.

      Delete
    2. In fairness (to use a Bob phrase) the Unreliable but Important Mr. Wildstein's attorney did not say they were sitting on evidence. He said "evidence exists."

      Delete
  6. "Guess what? If they continue to plead the Fifth, it may be that no one will ever interview Wildstein, Kelly or Stepien. Will the failure to “talk to any of those folks” be listed as an objection to future reports from other entities?"

    Yeah, it will be, by me. They have the right to rely on the 5th Amendment. But would any account be more credible and complete if the three people involved in it recounted events?

    Yeah, of course it would.

    We don't have to pretend the information they could provide disappears when they plead the 5th. It's still there.

    One can recognize the 5th amendment and also believe their testimony is very important or necessary to a complete or believable account of events.

    That's the trade-off for the protection against self-incrimination. We may never know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your opening quote was a fact which both Maddow and Kornacki discussed. BOBaddow made that discussion "disappear."

      KZ

      Delete
  7. Having watched the segment and reread this post I am stunned by the hysteria that seems to be taking over TDH.

    "Agitprop"? Seriously? Is this post an audition for writing the Y.A.F.
    alumni newsletter for the Cold War Classes of the mid 20th century?

    Kornacki and Maddow gave a relatively mild rundown of what was in the Times article. It was pedestrian and, if anything, rather boring.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She's agitprop. No, she's Joe McCarthy.
      She's a witch hunter. No she's a clown.
      She's a rating hound. No she believes her twaddle.

      She makes millions. She makes millions.

      Delete
  8. "Duh! Everything gets rolled out that way! And everybody knows it.

    Go ahead—watch the tape of that segment. You’re watching an attempt at preconditioning, an act of propaganda."

    Wait. What they did on MSNBC was propaganda. Precodnitioning.
    But rolling out results to promote in advance a finding of "no guilt for the Governor is not propaganda? It is not preconditioning?

    Covering a Page 1 story in the New York Times on a topic you have covered since December is pre-conditioning? Just last week ignoring a story in the New York Times was evidence of the "end of the Tulip Craze."

    ReplyDelete
  9. First it's Steven Hawking, now it's Maddow. No one is good enough for the blogger.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where are Bob's old friends?

      His new ones are over at the posts on black kids hating on black kids and cheering on Bob's attacks on uncaring liberals.

      Delete
  10. My Name is johnson Wilson..I never
    believed in Love Spells or Magics until I
    met this special spell caster when i went
    to Africa to Execute some business..He is
    really powerful..My wife and I were divorce with
    no reason for almost 3 years and i tried
    all i could to have her back because i really
    love her so much but all my effort did
    not work out.. we met at our early age at
    the college and we both have feelings for
    each other and we got married happily
    for 5 years with no kid and she woke up
    one morning and said it is over between us and she is going to get a divorce..i thought it was a joke and
    when she came back from work she
    tender to me a divorce letter and she
    packed all her loads from my house..i
    ran mad and i tried all i could to have
    her back but all did not work out..i was
    lonely for almost 3 years…So when i told
    the spell caster what happened he said
    he will help me and he asked for her full
    name and her picture..i gave him
    that..At first i was skeptical but i gave it
    a try because i have tried so many spell
    casters and there was no solution…so when
    he finished with the readings,he got back
    to me that she’s with a man and that
    man is the reason why she left me…The
    spell caster said he will help me with a
    spell that will surely bring her back.but i
    never believe all this…he told me i will
    see a positive result within 3 days..3
    days later,she called me herself and
    came to me apologizing and she told me
    she will come back to me..at first I didn't believe it,it was like a dream because i never
    believe this will work out after trying
    many spell casters and there was no
    solution..The spell caster is so powerful
    and after that he helped me with a
    pregnancy spell and my wife got
    pregnant a month later..we are now
    happy been together again and with
    lovely kid..This spell caster has really
    changed my life and i will forever be
    thankful to him..he has helped many
    friends too with similar problem and
    they are happy and thankful to him..This
    man is indeed the most powerful spell
    caster i have ever experienced in life..Am
    Posting this to the Forum in case there is
    anyone who has similar problem and still
    looking for a way out..you can reach him
    here: alexzanderhightemple@gmail.com......
    CONTACT THIS POWERFUL SPELL CASTER
    TODAY VIA EMAI.alexzanderhightemple@gmail.com.

    ReplyDelete