Art Ridzik: In this country, we try to protect the rights of individuals. It's called the Miranda Act, and it says that you can't even touch his ass.
Ivan Danko: I do not want to touch his ass. I want to make him talk.
When the Clinton campaign began claiming that Russia was hacking email accounts and trying to influence the presidential election in late summer/early fall, I initially figured that this was an attempt to sway #NeverTrump Republican voters who might respond favorably to Red Scare, McCarthy-like tactics and pull the lever for Clinton.
But then it persisted--straight on thru the election and into the Left's post-election hysteria phase.
The New Red Scare reached new levels of absurdity this weekend, as the Washington Post and others published stories citing unnamed sources who claim that the CIA believes that Russia intervened in the election to help Donald Trump win the presidency.
Once again, the irony could hardly be greater. The same government agency that has actively engaged in espionage and misinformation campaigns aimed at swaying elections in other countries is cited, anonymously, as a credible source of information about this particular election.
Naturally, Democrats seeking to cope with their post election cognitive dissonance have embraced the reports as truth.
Both Glenn Greenwald and Craig Murray demolish this latest round of bogus reporting by a slanted media that continues to lose credibility by the day. The problems associated with basing stories on, as Greenwald puts it, "competing, unverifiable anonymous leaks from professional liars inside government agencies, cheered by drooling, lost partisans anxious to embrace whatever claims make them feel good, all conducted without the slightest regard for rational faculties or evidentiary requirements" are blatantly obvious.
We know that markets for media bias exist. The New Red Scare market remains a growth story.