Monday, May 13, 2019

COMMENTARY MAGAZINE IS NOW EVALUATED TO BE AN "UNRELIABLE SOURCE" OF INFORMATION.

As an example of “false news” we are attaching an article by Noah Rothman.

Mr. Rothman should be reminded that the footnotes employed by Robert Mueller his report to Atty. Gen. Barr  heavily utilized media reports [many of them the result of targeted political leaks] as sources to support his statements. Further, the hacking of and/or theft of materials from the Democratic national committee and from John Podesta is still an open issue since there is no government forensics examination to evaluate and authenticate the claims of the DNC contractor.

Further, Mr. Rothman should be reminded that the Mueller report was largely written by Andrew Wisemann and is a prosecutors’ maximum brief. Very few of the allegations contained in the special prosecutors report have been subject to refutation and/or cross-examination.

 Mr. Rothman cites the” rule of law.” It would be beneficial for Cmmentary, its readers and the general American public   if Mr. Rothman actually understood what the concept of rule of law actually means.




https://www.commentarymagazine.com/author/noah-rothman/

Thursday, May 9, 2019

New York Times Trump Tax Story Leaves Out NYC Real Estate Crash…. And that the complete account was publicly reported by Donald Trump in 1997 and again in 2004

In 1991 the Times prematurely declared Trump a business failure.  Then, when many other major real estate developers went bankrupt, Trump, surviving the crash, rebounded.[reported in Donald Trump's  1997 book the “Art of the Comeback.”]

Donald Trump, himself, scooped the New York Times by publicly reporting his financial difficulties and his recovery in a video promoting his book on ‘The Apprentice’ in 2004,  15 Years Before New York Times ‘Bombshell’    https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/05/08/new-york-times-bombshell-already-part-of-donald-trump-apprentice-tv-narrative/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_content=links&utm_campaign=20190508

May 7,  2019

The epic crash of New York City (NYC) real estate, which had battered Trump’s investments and left many of his fellow real estate investors clinging to any lifeline of solvency, was finally over. Prices of New York City real estate, which had fallen in each of the previous five years, had finally started to rise.on ‘The Apprentice’ 15 Years Before New York Times ‘Bombshell’

Apartment rental prices fell by 15 percent during the slump that had begun in 1988. The prices of co-ops and condos were down by nearly twice that much. Manhattan homes fell by 32.9 percent between 1989 and 1996, according to a study by the Furman Center for Real Estate & Urban Policy. In Chelsea and Hell’s Kitchen — that westside stretch where Trump had invested so much in a plan to turn an old railyard into a new neighborhood — home prices fell 40.4 percent.

The giant Canadian real estate company Olympia & York had declared bankruptcy. At one point, it had been the largest landlord in New York. By 1992, it had fired its bankers from J.P. Morgan and hired Felix G. Rohatyn, the guy who had saved New York City itself from the brink of bankruptcy in the 1970s. In the end, it would be swallowed up by its creditors, vanishing into the ash heap of history.

Banks were getting crushed. New Jersey’s largest savings association was seized by federal regulators after real estate losses. Wall Street was scrambling, with real-estate king Goldman Sachs suddenly finding it could not raise money from investors for real estate projects
“Even Goldman, which has dominated the business on Wall Street, is telling many of its real estate bankers to look for new jobs,” a news story noted in 1991.

Trump had made it through the worst period in New York City real estate in living memory while bigger, deeper-pocketed rivals had failed — a sigh of relief, at least.

Yet according to the New York Times story detailing glimpses at Trump’s finances from “tax transcripts” of his filings from 1985 to 1994, Trump’s personal financial losses during the New York City real estate crisis somehow mark him as a failure rather than someone who persevered through an economic story.

From the Times: Mr. Trump was propelled to the presidency, in part, by a self-spun narrative of business success and of setbacks triumphantly overcome. He has attributed his first run of reversals and bankruptcies to the recession that took hold in 1990. But 10 years of tax information obtained by The New York Times paints a different, and far bleaker, picture of his deal-making abilities and financial condition.

The story goes on to describe how Trump reported negative income — meaning he lost money — every year from 1985 until 1994, the years for which the Times obtained tax transcripts. The big losses, however, come the years from 1990 through 1994, with 1990 and 1991 showing up as the worst. In other words, the Times story shows that Trump’s business of real estate investing in and around New York City suffered massive losses in the years when New York City real estate crashed.

The Times story on Trump’s taxes does not include the condition of the New York City real estate market in those years, although every link to data in this article (saving the Furman Center study) is to articles in the New York Times.

This is not the first time the Times has declared Trump a business failure. In 1991, when the losses the New York Times reported on this week were mounting, Times columnist Floyd Norris declared that Trump’s financial troubles meant “the Trump aura will never be the same.”

“For Mr. Trump, Fed easing might not help that much. Bankers may not be fast learners, but they do catch on. For him, the era of easy credit is unlikely to ever return,” Norris wrote in 1990.

As it turns out, that announcement of the financial death of Trump was as exaggerated …..
*******






TRUMPS INCOME TAXES- EXPLAINED



You might find Busler’s article useful in explaining the real meaning of the “losses” reported by the New York Times relative to Donald Trump’s income tax returns.

 Nearly every serious investor understands exactly what was done.

 Apparently, very few New York Times reporters have taken the time to actually understand this common phenomena that is basic to much of US investment activity. Worse, the public record shows that the New York Times, as an organization, utilizes the identical tax mechanisms to minimize their tax liability. Thus the New York Times editors and publishers are apparently willing to knowingly inflict false information on their readers…. in what canreasonably be interpreted as part of a campaign to damage Donald Trump.


Understanding Trump’s Income Tax Tweet


A May 8, New York Times (NYT) articledeclared “Decade in the Red: Trump Tax Shows Over $1 Billion in Business Losses.” The column went on to say that “Newly obtained tax information reveals that from 1985 to 1994, Donald J. Trump’s businesses were in far bleaker condition than was previously known.”
President Trump quickly responded with a tweet saying the column was “highly inaccurate” and tried to explain why. While Trump really does have a legitimate position, he seems to not communicate that position well.
For instance, Trump notes that depreciation expense is used to minimize income tax liability. It is a justifiable expense because it allows for the recovery of a capital investment. This is necessary to ensure that capital is re-invested back into the economy often in ventures that carry large risk.
In other words, suppose a businessperson buys or builds a factory for $100,000. She uses capital that came from income earned after paying income taxes. The IRS says they will allow that person to recover her investment over say a 25-year period at $4,000 year. That capital can be recovered without paying taxes on it, from the profits generated by that factory.
Now suppose the factory generates $3,000 in profit the first year. With no depreciation expense their total tax bill could be as much as $1,400, leaving them just $1,600 cash flow. But with the $4,000 depreciation expense, the income would be negative (a loss), so the businessperson pays no taxes. As a result, the cash flow is $3,000.
In finance, that is referred to as the depreciation tax shield. Trump referred to it as a tax shelter. It results in negative income but smaller tax liability and larger positive cash flows. Nothing is illegal, immoral or wrong about that. It is precisely for that reason that Trump’s tax returns show negative income (losses) while his cash flow was very positive and he became very successful.
Trump’s tweet said, “You always wanted to show losses for tax purposes....almost all real estate developers did - and often re-negotiate with banks, it was sport.
The last part of that tweet is interesting. Trump called re-negotiating with the bank a “sport.” Many large developers and very successful business people often view certain negotiations, particularly with a bank, as a game or a sport.
Banking is one of the very few industries where the product offered is what economists would call “perfectly homogeneous.” That means every bank is offering exactly the same product; the use of money. Since businesspeople always try to minimize their cost, they many times negotiate with many lenders. It doesn’t matter which bank agrees to financing a project, since money is money.
In these negotiations it is not simply the interest rate that is negotiated but many other conditions like minimum balances, up-front fees, contingencies, timing and flexibility. Many developers often say that the terms of the loan are more important than the actual interest rate. These conditions often result in spirited negotiations.
In the end, the developer does business with the lender that offers the best overall package of price and terms. Many view the negotiations as a sport which results in a competition that produces winners and losers. That’s how business operates.
The President says the NYT article is just another “Fake News hit job!” It looks like he is right.
More disturbing is that the column shows that the writer’s simply do not understand business and are therefore writing about a topic without sufficient knowledge. In Journalism that is usually viewed as a “no-no.”
Perhaps the real motivation is simply to continue the narrative that Trump is a crook, liar etc. The New York Times as well as most other major media outlets have be writing very biased and often inaccurate stories about the president ever since he won the election in November 2016.
Trump’s right. There is a lot of fake news out there.
Recommended from Townhall

Tuesday, May 7, 2019

‘Click-Gap’ Is Facebook’s Latest Tool to Favor Establishment Media

Mark Zuckerberg Smiles discussing Facebook
GERARD JULIEN/Getty

Facebook received a lot of attention for overt censorship last week. But the social network is engaging in covert suppression of independent media too — most recently with its introduction of “Click-Gap,” a way of favoring established websites and suppressing non-established ones.

The Click-Gap system will penalize websites that haven’t established “authority” outside Facebook, where “authority” is measured by the number of clicks they receive from sources outside the platform, such as mainstream media sources.
Here’s how Facebook’s “VP of integrity” and “VP of news integrity” explained it on the company’s official blog:
Click-Gap looks for domains with a disproportionate number of outbound Facebook clicks compared to their place in the web graph. This can be a sign that the domain is succeeding on News Feed in a way that doesn’t reflect the authority they’ve built outside it and is producing low-quality content.
Given how important Facebook has become to the growth of new websites, the system seems designed to promote sites that build up their followings before the rise of the social network. It favors older, established outlets and punishes upstarts. Which, of course, is exactly what the establishment media wants.
It also favors establishment media in another way. One of the largest sources for links and citations of news sources is Wikipedia, the leftist-dominated “online encyclopedia.” But conservative sources including Breitbart News are frequently blacklisted as “unreliable” on the site. In practice, there are essentially no links to Breitbart News throughout the entirety of Wikipedia, based on the actions of its zealous administrators and editors — actions Facebook’s new policy is designed to exploit.
The high number of citations and links to establishment sources on Wikipedia pages – which frequently appear at the top of Google search results – will favor those websites in Facebook’s new algorithm.
Breitbart News has reached out to Facebook for comment.
Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. You can follow him on TwitterGab.ai and add him on Facebook. Email tips and suggestions to allumbokhari@protonmail.com.

Saturday, May 4, 2019

Ukrainian Embassy confirms DNC contractor solicited Trump dirt in 2016
BY JOHN SOLOMON  THE HILL 05-02-19

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/441892-ukrainian-embassy-confirms-dnc-contractor-solicited-trump-dirt-in-2016



Ukrainian Embassy confirms DNC contractor solicited Trump dirt in 2016
The boomerang from the Democratic Party’s failed attempt to connect Donald Trump to Russia’s 2016 election meddling is picking up speed, and its flight path crosses right through Moscow’s pesky neighbor, Ukraine. That is where there is growing evidence a foreign power was asked, and in some cases tried, to help Hillary Clinton.

In its most detailed account yet, the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington says a Democratic National Committee (DNC) insider during the 2016 election solicited dirt on Donald Trump’s campaign chairman and even tried to enlist the country's president to help.

In written answers to questions, Ambassador Valeriy Chaly's office says DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa sought information from the Ukrainian government on Paul Manafort’s dealings inside the country, in hopes of forcing the issue before Congress.

Chalupa later tried to arrange for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to comment on Manafort’s Russian ties on a U.S. visit during the 2016 campaign, the ambassador said.

Chaly says that, at the time of the contacts in 2016, the embassy knew Chalupa primarily as a Ukrainian-American activist and learned only later of her ties to the DNC. He says the embassy considered her requests an inappropriate solicitation of interference in the U.S. election.

“The Embassy got to know Ms. Chalupa because of her engagement with Ukrainian and other diasporas in Washington D.C., and not in her DNC capacity. We’ve learned about her DNC involvement later,” Chaly said in a statement issued by his embassy. “We were surprised to see Alexandra’s interest in Mr. Paul Manafort’s case. It was her own cause. The Embassy representatives unambiguously refused to get involved in any way, as we were convinced that this is a strictly U.S. domestic matter.

“All ideas floated by Alexandra were related to approaching a Member of Congress with a purpose to initiate hearings on Paul Manafort or letting an investigative journalist ask President Poroshenko a question about Mr. Manafort during his public talk in Washington, D.C.,” the ambassador explained.

Reached by phone last week, Chalupa said she was too busy to talk. She did not respond to email and phone messages seeking subsequent comment.

Chaly’s written answers mark the most direct acknowledgement by Ukraine’s government that an American tied to the Democratic Party sought the country’s help in the 2016 election, and they confirm the main points of a January 2017 story by Politico on Chalupa’s efforts.

In that story, the embassy was broadly quoted as denying interference in the election and suggested Chalupa’s main reason for contacting the ambassador’s office was to organize an event celebrating women leaders.

The fresh statement comes several months after a Ukrainian court ruled that the country’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), closely aligned with the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, and a parliamentarian named Serhiy Leshchenko wrongly interfered in the 2016 American election by releasing documents related to Manafort.

The acknowledgement by Kiev’s embassy, plus newly released testimony, suggests the Ukrainian efforts to influence the U.S. election had some intersections in Washington as well.

Nellie Ohr, wife of senior U.S. Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, acknowledged in congressional testimony that, while working for the Clinton-hired research firm Fusion GPS, she researched Trump's and Manafort’s ties to Russia and learned Leshchenko, the Ukrainian lawmaker, was providing dirt to Fusion.

Fusion also paid British intelligence operative Christopher Steele, whose anti-Trump dossier the FBI used as primary evidence to support its request to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.   

In addition, I wrote last month that the Obama White House invited Ukrainian law enforcement officials to a meeting in January 2016 as Trump rose in the polls on his improbable path to the presidency. The meeting led to U.S. requests to the Ukrainians to help investigate Manafort, setting in motion a series of events that led to the Ukrainians leaking the documents about Manafort in May 2016.

The DNC’s embassy contacts add a new dimension, though. Chalupa discussed in the 2017 Politico article about her efforts to dig up dirt on Trump and Manafort, including at the Ukrainian embassy.

FEC records show Chalupa’s firm, Chalupa & Associates, was paid $71,918 by the DNC during the 2016 election cycle.

Exactly how the Ukrainian Embassy responded to Chalupa’s inquiries remains in dispute.

Chaly’s statement says the embassy rebuffed her requests for information: “No documents related to Trump campaign or any individuals involved in the campaign have been passed to Ms. Chalupa or the DNC neither from the Embassy nor via the Embassy. No documents exchange was even discussed.”

But Andrii Telizhenko, a former political officer who worked under Chaly from December 2015 through June 2016, told me he was instructed by the ambassador and his top deputy to meet with Chalupa in March 2016 and to gather whatever dirt Ukraine had in its government files about Trump and Manafort.

Telizhenko said that, when he was told by the embassy to arrange the meeting, both Chaly and the ambassador’s top deputy identified Chalupa “as someone working for the DNC and trying to get Clinton elected.”

Over lunch at a Washington restaurant, Chalupa told Telizhenko in stark terms what she hoped the Ukrainians could provide the DNC and the Clinton campaign, according to his account.

“She said the DNC wanted to collect evidence that Trump, his organization and Manafort were Russian assets, working to hurt the U.S. and working with Putin against the U.S. interests. She indicated if we could find the evidence they would introduce it in Congress in September and try to build a case that Trump should be removed from the ballot, from the election,” he recalled.

After the meeting, Telizhenko said he became concerned about the legality of using his country’s assets to help an American political party win an U.S. election. But he proceeded with his assignment.

Telizhenko said that, as he began his research, he discovered that Fusion GPS was nosing around Ukraine, seeking similar information, and he believed they, too, worked for the Democrats.

As a former aide inside the general prosecutor’s office in Kiev, Telizhenko used contacts with intelligence, police and prosecutors across the country to secure information connecting Russian figures to assistance on some of the Trump organization’s real estate deals overseas, including a tower in Toronto.

Telizhenko said he did not want to provide the intelligence he collected directly to Chalupa, and instead handed the materials to Chaly: “I told him what we were doing was illegal, that it was unethical doing this as diplomats.” He said the ambassador told him he would handle the matter and had opened a second channel back in Ukraine to continue finding dirt on Trump.

Telizhenko said he also was instructed by his bosses to meet with an American journalist researching Manafort’s ties to Ukraine.

About a month later, he said his relationship with the ambassador soured and, by June 2016, he was ordered to return to Ukraine. There, he reported his concerns about the embassy’s contacts with the Democrats to the former prosecutor general’s office and officials in the Poroshenko administration: “Everybody already knew what was going on and told me it had been approved at the highest levels.”

Telizhenko said he never was able to confirm whether the information he collected for Chalupa was delivered to her, the DNC or the Clinton campaign.

Chalupa, meanwhile, continued to build a case that Manafort and Trump were tied to Russia.

In April 2016, she attended an international symposium where she reported back to the DNC that she had met with 68 Ukrainian investigative journalists to talk about Manafort. She also wrote that she invited American reporter Michael Isikoff to speak with her. Isikoff wrote some of the seminal stories tying Manafort to Ukraine and Trump to Russia; he later wrote a book making a case for Russian collusion.

“A lot more coming down the pipe,” Chalupa wrote a top DNC official on May 3, 2016, recounting her effort to educate Ukrainian journalists and Isikoff about Manafort.

Then she added: “More offline tomorrow since there is a big Trump component you and Lauren need to be aware of that will hit in next few weeks and something I’m working on you should be aware of.”

Less than a month later, the “black ledger” identifying payments to Manafort was announced in Ukraine, forcing Manafort to resign as Trump’s campaign chairman and eventually to face criminal prosecution for improper foreign lobbying.

DNC officials have suggested in the past that Chalupa’s efforts were personal, not officially on behalf of the DNC. But Chalupa’s May 2016 email clearly informed a senior DNC official that she was “digging into Manafort” and she suspected someone was trying to hack into her email account.

Chaly over the years has tried to portray his role as Ukraine’s ambassador in Washington as one of neutrality during the 2016 election. But in August 2016 he raised eyebrows in some diplomatic circles when he wrote an op-ed in The Hill skewering Trump for some of his comments on Russia. “Trump’s comments send wrong message to world,” Chaly’s article blared in the headline.

In his statement to me, Chaly said he wrote the op-ed because he had been solicited for his views by The Hill’s opinion team.

Chaly’s office also acknowledged that a month after the op-ed, President Poroshenko met with then-candidate Clinton during a stop in New York. The office said the ambassador requested a similar meeting with Trump but it didn’t get organized.

Though Chaly and Telizhenko disagree on what Ukraine did after it got Chalupa’s request, they confirm that a paid contractor of the DNC solicited their government’s help to find dirt on Trump that could sway the 2016 election.

For a Democratic Party that spent more than two years building the now-disproven theory that Trump colluded with Russia to hijack the 2016 election, the tale of the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington feels just like a speeding political boomerang.


John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He serves as an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at The Hill.
THERE IS A PROVABLE CASE OF “OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE”…. THE PERPETRATORS ARE ANDREW WEISMANN AND ROBERT MUELLER


The prosecutors offered Corsi  a plea deal in lieu of indicting him IF he  provided a  link to connect Roger Stone and Donald Trump to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. The choice they gave Corsi was to plead guilty to one count with the prosecutors’ agreement they would seek no prison term, OR  to  reject their  deal and spend possibly $2 million that he did not have to defend himself in a federal criminal case  before a hostile Washington jury that he was sure to lose that would result in a 25-year prison term. Since Corsi was 72 years old at the time,  a prison term of that length would have meant he was likely to die in federal prison.THERE IS A PROVABLE CASE OF “OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE”…. THE PERPETRATORS ARE ANDREW WEISMANN AND ROBERT MUELLER



From:When prescience was a crime
By Jerome Corsi  Thursday, May 2, 2019

During the Mueller probe, what started as voluntary testimony ended up a 40-hour inquisitorial nightmare with the prosecutors offering me a plea deal in lieu of indicting me.

Special counsel’s prosecutors became angry and abusive in my six sessions of interviews with them over a two-month period in September and October last year precisely because I failed to have the all-important link to connect Roger Stone and Donald Trump to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. There was, of course, no such link. (For more on this, see my new book “Silent No More: How I Became a Political Prisoner to Mueller’s “Witch Hunt”.”)

Why were Mr. Mueller’s prosecutors so convinced they would lock and load their Russian collusion case with my testimony? Perhaps because in July and August 2016, when I was in Italy with my wife and family celebrating our 25th wedding anniversary, I figured out on my own that Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks had possession of the stolen emails from John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. I also speculated Mr. Assange would make these emails public in a serial, drip-by-drip fashion as that year’s October Surprise. When I came to these conclusions, I began communicating by email and phone regarding my suspicions.

Mr. Mueller’s prosecutors told my attorney that they were certain I had to have a contact with Mr. Assange because my information that Mr. Assange would drop “ad seriatim” Podesta emails in October was just too prescient to have involved simple deduction. Hence, the endless series of interviews.

The problem that turned my 40 hours of voluntary with the prosecutors into a nightmare was the truth that I have never had any contact with Julian Assange or WikiLeaks in any manner, either directly or indirectly. When I tried to explain to the prosecutors how I had “connected the dots” to come to the conclusion that Mr. Assange was holding stolen Podesta emails as his October Surprise, the prosecutors insisted that I was lying in order to protect Roger Stone and Donald Trump.

At least 20 hours out of my 40-hour inquisition involved an attempt by the prosecutors to identify my (non-existent) contact with Mr. Assange. In September and October 2018, the FBI contacted and often visited everyone who showed up in my email and phone records from 2016-17. I made an honest effort to see if I may have gotten information from Mr. Assange indirectly, through a contact I did not realize at the time was in touch with WikiLeaks.

I had responded to the subpoena to the Mueller grand jury that the FBI delivered to me showing up with no pre-announcement at my front door on Aug. 28, 2018, deciding to cooperate. I also volunteered to surrender to the FBI the laptop computers I had used in 2016-17, along with the external hard drives that contained my computer backup files. Additionally, I surrendered my cellphone and all my email accounts.

But when Mr. Mueller’s team ended its interview with me, the prosecutors nonetheless told my attorney that they intended to prosecute me for lying to them.

The plea deal that I was offered required me to plead guilty to one count that involved my first day’s testimony before I had reviewed my 2016 emails. The prosecutors gave me 10 days to recover and study my emails, at the end of which I returned to Washington and amended my first day testimony, acknowledging emails that I had forgotten that first day.

My attorney explained to me that if I rejected the plea deal, I would most likely face a hostile jury in Washington, and he expected the prosecutors would seek a conviction that would result in a 25-year prison term. Since I was 72 years old at the time, I expected a prison term of that length would have meant I was likely to die in federal prison. So, my choice was to plead guilty to one count with the prosecutors’ agreement they would seek no prison term, or reject their prison deal to spend possibly $2 million that I did not have to defend myself in a federal criminal case that I was sure to lose.

As I struggled through this decision, my wife woke up one morning and told me she would rather visit me in prison for the rest of my life than have me not be the man she married. That was the final piece I needed to resolve my decision that I could not swear before a federal judge and before God that I had knowingly and willfully provided Mr. Mueller’s prosecutors and the FBI with information on a material matter with the intent to deceive them. I had not done that. Yes, I suffered many memory mistakes, but always Mr. Mueller’s team had allowed me to amend my testimony when they pulled, for instance, an email or a phone record that contradicted my recollection from the 6-to-8 inch binder with my name on it that Mr. Mueller’s team would not allow me to examine.

That Mr. Mueller’s team folded its tent without prosecuting me proved Mr. Mueller had threatened me to accept a plea deal on a criminal charge the prosecutors and FBI could not prove in court. I feel vindicated in that Robert Mueller’s failure to prosecute me affirms that I did not lie.


• Jerome Corsi, a political commentator, is the author of “Silent No More” (Post Hill Press, 2019).

@ David Brooks...Nancy Pelosi claimed Atty. Gen. Barr  committed perjury. lLeft of center Atlantic magazine legal expert Benjamin Wittes States that he did not see any signs of perjury. So, you, David Brooks, accuse   Atty. Gen. Barr  of spinning. What   is it that can't you understand about "no  collusion" and  "no obstruction".


Brooks: Barr ‘Didn’t Lie,’ But ‘He Spun’

On Friday’s “PBS NewsHour,” New York Times columnist David Brooks stated that while Attorney General William Barr “didn’t lie” during his testimony before Congress, “he spun.”
Brooks said, “I thought it was best expressed by a piece by Benjamin Wittes, who’s a legal expert in the Atlantic. He said he didn’t see any sign of perjury, that he didn’t lie, as Nancy Pelosi claims, but he spun. And so, everything he said was shaded in the direction to make Trump look good. … And when you become just another spinner for the president, then you’re undermining your relationship to the American people, you’re undermining your defense of the agency, and you’re subtly undermining law.”