[American Spectator] Why did the FBI assign the same agents who investigated Hillary Clinton’s emails to look into allegations of Russian collusion with Donald Trump’s campaign?
Given the overlapping timetable of both cases, the decision appears not only peculiar but harmful to the efforts. The inspector general notes in his report the repeated excuse that the importance of the Russia investigation led to the crucial delay in the reopening of the Clinton email investigation after the discovery of former Secretary of State’s missing messages on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. The bureau assigning different agents and lawyers to each case, the IG suggests, likely would have prevented the one-month delay in looking into the laptop that came, crucially, just days prior to the 2016 election.
But if the primary concern involved not bringing the investigations to determinative conclusions but to the most politically advantageous conclusions, then assigning different investigators to the different teams does not make sense. As Michael Horowitz’s investigation shows, many of those involved in both investigations shared outspoken political prejudices against Donald Trump, referred to as "that menace" in one text exchange between FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page. Another figure anonymously referred to in the IG’s report received his walking papers from Robert Mueller’s team earlier this year ‐ following the exit’s of Strzok and Page ‐ after the special counsel came across evidence of his pollical bias courtesy of the IG. When asked in a text immediately after the election whether his distaste for Trump might preclude him from working within his Justice Department, he responded: "Hell no. Viva le resistance."
That bias, aired openly among colleagues, never prevented the anonymous lawyer from working on the Clinton email investigation, the FBI’s look into Trump-Russian collusion, or special counsel Mueller’s inquiry into that same matter ‐ until, of course, the inspector general readied to tell the world what the man’s peers already knew. This raises the question of whether what made him so obviously unfit for these tasks to the general public appeared to his colleagues and bosses as his primary qualification.
The use of the same people to look into both Clinton and Trump puzzled Michael Horowitz. The inspector general writes in his report:
#7
Historically, many revolutionary groups ran about 30-to-1 ratio of Cadre to Sympathizers (Part-time Flunkies), or to put it another way when the Super Villain needs something done there are far fewer "Number #2's" than the Generic Rent-A-Thug sent over from the villain training co-op.
[American Thinker] Here's a thought experiment: what happens if you release criminals, a lot of them, from jail?
If you asked a liberal in California, they would tell you that these criminals were unjustly jailed in the first place (think racism on the part of liberal inner city judges, juries, and prosecutors) and that these unjustly imprisoned would return to become productive parts of society.
Imagine their surprise to learn, then, that after reducing or eliminating sentences for certain property crimes, the rate of property crimes has only increased!
California voters’ decision to reduce penalties for drug and property crimes in 2014 contributed to a jump in car burglaries, shoplifting and other theft, researchers reported.
Larcenies increased about 9% by 2016, or about 135 more thefts per 100,000 residents than if tougher penalties had remained, according to results of a study by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California released Tuesday.
Thefts from motor vehicles accounted for about three-quarters of the increase. San Francisco alone recorded more than 30,000 auto burglaries last year, which authorities largely blamed on gangs.
Proposition 47 lowered criminal sentences for drug possession, theft, shoplifting, identity theft, receiving stolen property, writing bad checks and check forgery from felonies that can carry prison terms to misdemeanors that often bring minimal jail sentences.
Do you think liberals have learned anything from this? Think again:
California still has historically low crime rates despite recent changes in the criminal justice system aimed at reducing mass incarceration and increasing rehabilitation and treatment programs, said Lenore Anderson, the executive director of Californians for Safety and Justice and a leader in the drive to pass Proposition 47.
"This report shows we are making progress," she said in a statement calling for less spending on prisons and more on programs to help reduce the cycle of crime.
The ballot measure led to the lowest arrest rate in state history in 2015 as experts said police frequently ignored crimes that brought minimal punishment.
They say that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. If that's true, then it must also be true in California that a liberal is a liberal who has had his car or home broken into. Indeed people in San Francisco have had their cars broken into so frequently that they think this is the "new normal" and people talk laughingly to each other about how often their cars have been broken into, as if it's a subject of conversation as common as the doings of the local sports team.
[The Federalist] On Thursday, the Justice Department’s inspector general released a long-anticipated report on the FBI’s handling of the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server that handled classified information. Here are some quick takeaways from the report.
1. Learn How To Interpret An IG Report
The best way to understand an inspector general (IG) report is less as a fiercely independent investigation that seeks justice and more like what you’d expect from a company’s human resources department. Employees frequently think that a company’s human resources department exists to serve employees. There’s some truth in that, but it’s more true that the human resources department exists to serve the corporation.
At the end of the day, the HR department wants what’s best for the company. The FBI’s IG Michael Horowitz has a good reputation for good reason. But his report is in support of the FBI and its policies and procedures. As such, the findings will be focused on helping the FBI improve its adherence to those policies and procedures. Those who expected demands for justice in the face of widespread evidence of political bias and poor judgment by immature agents and executives were people unfamiliar with the purpose of IG reports.
The IG is also a government bureaucrat producing government products that are supposed to be calm and boring. In the previous report that led to Andrew McCabe’s firing as deputy director of the FBI and referral for criminal prosecution, his serial lying under oath was dryly phrased as "lack of candor." In this report detailing widespread problems riddled throughout the Clinton email probe, the language is similarly downplayed. That’s particularly true in the executive summary, which attempts to downplay the actual details that fill the report with evidence of poor decision-making, extreme political bias, and problematic patterns of behavior. Ten more key take-aways follow.
#1
1. it was a whitewash
2. it identified the most defensible least offensive crimes
2. it identified the least desirable least offensive criminals
2. it was remarkably narrow in it's reach
2. it stepped over many dollars to find some shiney pennies
2. it did not name any IG investigator cronies
2. it did not draw any clinton connection
2. how many is that?
2. due process was clearly engaged to maintain the status quo
[Breitbart] President Donald Trump said Friday he was in the process of fighting a war with agencies like the FBI, citing their "very dishonest" behavior in their investigations.
"I’m actually proud because I beat the Clinton dynasty. I beat Bush dynasty, and now I guess hopefully I’m in the process of beating very dishonest intelligence," Trump said.
He said the FBI betrayed both Republicans and Democrats in the 2016 presidential election.
"[W]hat they did was incredible and a real insult to millions of people that voted in that election on both sides," Trump said.
The president repeatedly attacked Comey, calling him "the ringleader of this whole den of thieves" at the FBI and said his actions were likely "criminal."
He also mocked Comey for using a private email address to conduct business on the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of private email to conduct business.
[American Thinker] Researchers have discovered an alarming trend: the average IQ's of human beings is on a downward spiral.
Westerns have lost 14 IQ points on average since the Victorian age, according to a study published by the University of Amsterdam last year. Jan te Nijenhuis thinks this could be because intelligent women tend to have less children than women who are not as clever.... educated people are deciding to have fewer children, so that subsequent generations are largely made up of less intelligent people.
Richard Lynn, a psychologist at the University of Ulster, calculated the decline in humans’ genetic potential.
He used data on average IQs around the world in 1950 and 2000 to discover that our collective intelligence has dropped by one IQ point.
Dr Lynn predicts that if this trend continues, we could lose another 1.3 IQ points by 2050.
Remember when liberals said that a one degree rise in global temperatures in a century could lead to cities being flooded and enormous tidal waves?
Just think what a drop of one IQ point in the next century could cause.
#1
Intelligence has limits, stupidity is infinite [See - socialism*]. Add billion humans here, add a billion more there, and the average will tend to go down.
* Rewarding the non-productive and punishing the productive just doesn't work out.
#3
As far as I can tell, the test uses reaction time as a proxy for intelligence; the modern IQ test was not invented until 1904, while Queen Victoria died in 1901, upon which event the Victorian Age ended. There are a good many reasons why reaction time might be measured as being greater nowadays, including living a more sendentary life and technology allowing more accurate measurements in the modern period.
Looking at Lynn’s study (decrease of one IQ point since 1950), it should be noted that proper IQ tests report a number within a ten point range, so a one point difference is within experimental error. Much like climate temperature increases reported in recent years.
Though I will admit that the reelection of Barack Obama would appear to reinforce the claim, though the subsequent election of Trump quite contradicts it. In other words, much like so many claims made by research psychologists.
#7
Depends on how the IQ Test is structured and what it tests for. Additionally the human brain remaps itself depending on what it is used for. I remember getting a job in an ice cream freezer and "relearning" mental mathematics -- LCD screens don't work at -10F. Did my IQ change, no, but if tested for math skills they would have improved after no longer using an electronic crutch.
#9
The problem with "intelligence" tests is that they purport to measure an ability or rather potential but are contaminated with "performance" or "achievement" by the nature of the test. Can you read the question, can you understand the question, can you fit the round peg in the appropriate slot? All rely on the testee having achieved some level of skill. So while there is no solid indication that intelligence is declining (since there are no "pure" measures of intelligence), there is plenty of evidence that verbal, reading and math skills are all in the toilet.
#10
I would be more concerned with lack of basic knowledge (how to take care of yourself and how the world works) and the lack of good decision making (plenty of smart people who do stupid stuff everyday).
A multi part series to be posted in coming days. Part I: the USA. Here's a selection, click through for the whole thing:
[Zeihan] The great upheavals of the World Wars left the US the pre-eminent power in every respect that matters. Over the course of fifty years, the Americans had gone from almost no navy, stealing Britain’s IP, and being a major global debtor to having the only navy, the technological edge, and to being an economic power on an unprecedented scale. The US had a choice: seek isolation once again and watch its only real competitor – the Soviets – slowly eat away at the periphery until they could challenge the US or find a way to take a ragtag group with long lists of mutual historical grievances a mile long and get them to work together. A real life Magnificent Seven.
The new idea was as straightforward as it was revolutionary: use America’s newfound and historically unprecedented economic power to pay all the previous competing powers of eras gone by to be on the same side. Any country that had any meaningful imperial presence could only do so if it also had a significant naval force. These empires’ clashes ‐ over resources, populations and trade routes ‐ were the root causes of nearly every significant military conflict of the entire industrial period, and they culminated into the First and Second World Wars.
#2
Bottom line: All the chaos and disruption of the past 15 months has been the result of a Donald Trump who has been actively held back. Now the world gets to see what a Trump unleashed – an America unleashed – can do.
Now they get the hangover, but a lot of countries are just trying Hair-of-the-dog QE (temporal debt) in order to delay the pain of actually fixing their problems.
#7
Beso, it's also ironic that while Ike warned about it he also "proved" its worth with his successful conduct of the war, getting all those ego maniacal generals on the same page.
[Townhall] On Wednesday, the American Medical Association approved an expansive list of "common-sense" demands for new gun control measures, including proposals to ban the sale and possession of "all assault-type weapons, bump stocks and related devices, high-capacity magazines, and armor piercing bullets." These gun control guidelines were approved by the AMA’s House of Delegates, a forum of the medical organization’s member physicians that meets twice a year to vote on medical and political policy recommendations.
The lengthy list of gun policy changes also includes bans on the sale of firearms and ammunition to those under 21 years of age, prohibitions on the ownership and unsupervised use of firearms by those under 21, and the establishment of a national gun registry for all firearms and a gun licensing system for gun owners.
Additionally, the AMA’s list of gun control proposals contains several measures that are reportedly intended to combat domestic violence, including a proposition to create a new legal procedure by which "family members, intimate partners, household members and law enforcement personnel" can petition courts to confiscate firearms from people "when there is a high or imminent risk for violence." Based on the AMA’s official blog post about their gun control proposals, this gun confiscation procedure does not appear to involve typical due process legal rights where the gun owner in question can defend himself or herself in court, nor is there any explicit definition for how "risk for violence" would be determined by a judge, leaving open the possibility that people without criminal convictions could be subject to having their guns taken away.
#1
Appears to me prescription drug abuse is killing far more Americans than firearms. Perhaps these people should concern themselves with something a little more relevant to their profession and reality.
#2
IIRC CDC found about 100,000 people a year die in hospitals from mistakes and mistreatment. Gun deaths (to include suicides) are about a quarter of that. Clean thy own house first.
The AMA still has more clout — and spends far more on lobbying — than the scores of medical specialty societies and splinter groups that sort doctors by political leanings. But it counts fewer than 25 percent of practicing physicians as members, down from 75 percent in the 1950s.
The same article pointed out that the AMA supported ObamaCare, which most doctors have suffered from — some of whom, our own Steve White included, having realized up front how devastating to the profession and the patients it would be.
No doubt more membership will be lost as a result of this vote — one wonders if it has joined the stable of George Soros-funded organizations...
Pistol ammunition prices were mostly steady. Rifle ammunition prices were mostly steady.
Prices for used pistols were mostly higher. Prices for used rifles were higher.
(June 16, 2018) For the fifth week running, used AR-15 prices have averaged out to below $500.
New Lows:
None
Pistol Ammunition
.45 Caliber, 230 Grain, From Last Week: Unchanged (3 Weeks)
Cheapest, 50 rounds: Foundry 35, Silver Bear, FMJ, Steel Casing, .23 per round
Cheapest Bulk, 1,000 rounds: FedArm, Own brand, FMJ, Brass Casing, Reloads, .20 per round (From Last Week: -.01 Each)
.40 Caliber Smith & Wesson, 180 Grain, From Last Week: +.01 Each
Cheapest, 50 rounds: Outdoor Limited, Tulammo, FMJ, Steel Casing, .20 per round
Cheapest Bulk, 500 rounds: SG Ammo, Tulammo, FMJ, Steel Casing, .20 per round (From Last Week: +.02 Each
9mm Parabellum, 115 Grain, From Last Week: Unchanged (1Q, 2018)
Cheapest, 50 rounds: Extreme Reloading, Own Brand, RN, Brass Casing, Reloads .14 per round
Cheapest Bulk, 500 rounds: FedArm, Own brand, FMJ, Brass Casing, Reloads .14 per round (From Last Week: Unchanged (1Q, 2018))
.357 Magnum, 158 Grain, From Last Week: Unchanged (4 Weeks)
Cheapest, 50 rounds: LAX Ammunition, Tulammo, FMJ, Steel Casing, .23 per round
Cheapest Bulk: 1,000 rounds: LAX Ammunition, Tulammo, FMJ, Steel Casing, .23 per round (From Last Week: Unchanged (3 Weeks))
.38 Special, 158 Grain, From Last Week: Unchanged (3 Weeks)
Cheapest, 50 rounds: Ammunition Depot, Fiocchi, RNL, Brass Casing, .22 per round
Cheapest Bulk: 500 rounds: FedArm, Own Brand, RNL, Brass Casing, Reloads .18 per round (From Last Week: -.02 Each After Unchanged (2 Weeks))
Rifle Ammunition
.223 Caliber/5.56mm 55 Grain, From Last Week: Unchanged (4Q, 2017)
Cheapest, 20 rounds: Outdoor Limited, Wolf WPA, FMJ, Steel Casing, .21 per round
Cheapest Bulk, 1,000 rounds: SG Ammo, Wolf WPA, FMJ, Steel Casing, .19 per round (From Last Week: -.01 Each After Unchanged (1Q, 2018))
.308 NATO 150 Grain, From Last Week: -.02 Each After Unchanged (1Q, 2018)
Cheapest, 20 rounds: Carolina Munitions, Tulammo, FMJ, Steel Casing, .30 per round
Cheapest Bulk, 500 rounds: SG Ammo, Tulammo, FMJ, Steel Casing, .30 per round (From Last Week: Unchanged (7 Weeks))
7.62x39mm AK 123 Grain, From Last Week: Unchanged (8 Weeks)
Cheapest, 20 rounds: Outdoor Limited, Wolf WPA, FMJ, Steel Casing, .20 per round
Cheapest Bulk, 1,000 rounds: SG Ammo, Wolf WPA, Steel Casing, FMJ, .19 per round (From Last Week: -.02 Each)
.30-06 Springfield 145 Grain, From Last Week: Unchanged (1Q, 2018)
Cheapest, 20 rounds: Outdoor Limited, Wolf WPA, Steel Casing, FMJ, .54 per round
Cheapest Bulk, 500 rounds: United Nations Ammo, Wolf WPA, Steel Casing, FMJ, .53 per round (From Last week: Unchanged (4Q, 2017))
.300 Winchester Magnum 150 Grain, From Last Week: Unchanged (1Q, 2018)
Cheapest, 20 rounds: LAX Ammunition, Prvi Partizan, Brass Casing, SP, .81 per round
Cheapest Bulk, 500 rounds: Target Sports USA, Prvi Partizan, Brass Casing, SP, .85 per round (From Last Week: Unchanged (1Q, 2018))
.338 Lapua Magnum 250 Grain, From Last Week: Unchanged (2Q, 2018)
Cheapest, 20 rounds: LAX Ammunition, Prvi Partizan, FMJ, Brass Casing, 2.50 per round
Cheapest Bulk, 200 rounds: Cabelas, Prvi Partizan, FMJ, Brass Casing, 2.80 per round (From Last Week: Unchanged (4 Weeks))
.22 LR 40 Grain, From Last Week: Unchanged (1Q, 2018)
Cheapest, 50 rounds: Ammomen, Aguila, RNL, Brass Casing, .04 per round
Cheapest Bulk, 500 rounds: Outdoor Limited, Armscor, RNL, Brass Casing, .04 per round (From Last Week: Unchanged (2Q, 2018))
[Spectator] But it also hurts because there is so much truth in Trump’s criticism. Each of the 29 Nato members agrees to spend 2 per cent of its economic output on defence, but only four do: Greece, Estonia, the UK and the US. Germany, the richest country in Europe, spends just 1.2 per cent of its GDP on defence. Angela Merkel’s offer to raise this to 1.5 per cent is still seen by Trump (and her own defence officials) as insultingly low. Together, European governments are saving about £140 billion by skimping on defence. They do so in the knowledge that the hole will be filled by Uncle Sam. Laughing all the way to the bank.
It’s not just Trump who objects to this. Successive American presidents have been losing patience. Even Barack Obama would complain about ’the Europeans and the Arab states holding our coats while we did all the fighting’. Britain only agreed to observe the 2 per cent defence spending minimum because Obama had told David Cameron that, without the money, he could forget about a ’special relationship’. And keeping UK defence spending at this bare minimum has left the British army with fewer soldiers than at any time since the Napoleonic wars. Still, Britain at least has a functioning military. It’s not clear that the same can be said of other Nato allies.
Take Germany, the target of so much of Trump’s recent ire. While defence is a low priority among a largely pacifist German public, mindful of their country’s history, a report for the German parliament earlier this year revealed the extent of the decay of its army, navy and air force. At the end of last year, the Bundeswehr had 128 Eurofighters, of which 39 could fly. It had six submarines, none of which were working when the report was compiled. Of its 13 ageing frigates, only five could sail. Of its 93 Tornado jets, 26 were ready for action. German air force trainees struggled to qualify because so few aircraft were ready for use. They're not ready because the government refuses to buy spare parts. They could; they just don't want to. And why should they, when they have a sucker to defend them free of charge?
Its staffing is also in crisis. Hans-Peter Bartels, armed forces commissioner to the German parliament, reported recently that 21,000 officer posts are vacant. ’We spent 25 years cutting the defence budget,’ he said. ’We thought everything could be solved through negotiations, agreements, co‐operation and partnerships.’
Wolfgang Ischinger, a former German envoy to Washington, said it was ’undignified’ that the most that Germany could contribute to the US-led fight against Islamic State was reconnaissance flights. ’We take photos, but we leave the dirty business of shooting to others,’ he said. ’We should not develop the reputation of being one of the world’s greatest freeloaders.’ There's that word again: freeloaders. Ungrateful freeloaders at that. When's the last time anyone heard a kind word from Europe? It's been years and years and years.
The reputation of the Germany military has not quite recovered from such fiascos as when, four years ago, soldiers in the- Panzergrenadierbataillon went on an exercise with painted broomsticks instead of guns because of a shortage of weapons. They were part of Nato’s ’Very High Readiness Joint Task Force’. Fucking broomsticks. I bet the Germans are actually proud of this.
Posted by: Herb McCoy ||
06/16/2018 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Remember every tax dollar to defense adds to the overall cost of products and services. Think of it as a tariff imposed on American products in the competing world market.
#2
...I've been saying this for years. That's why the stories about them forming a new 'European' fighting force are so damned funny - they not only don't have the manpower or equipment to do it; they'd have to rely on the US to move them anywhere.
Oh, and they can't talk to each other, either. Everybody runs different comm systems.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
06/16/2018 5:11 Comments ||
Top||
#3
In a war they'd do what the do on exercise and use their mobiles haha
#5
European Conservative demanded to know where Europr had a higher tariff on US products than teh US on EU.
Try cars: "The U.S. levies just a 2.5 percent tax on cars imported from Germany and other European Union members, compared with a 10 percent charge on American cars sent to Europe"
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/16/2018 8:20 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Considering how psychotic EUropean ideology is - is the fact that they're weak is really a bad thing?
#11
Ah, yes Renault... I once found myself driving a brand new rental Renault 50KM through the hills of Sicily with no 1st, 2nd or reverse gears. Car had 750km on it. Got behind a tractor trailer on an up hill grade and just about stalled her out...had to run a toll booth, just fliging money toward the basket.
Yes, Iran can keep them.
That's true and I did mention that, although it's not just US cars. Japanese cars don't seem to have a problem with that.
And note that due to outward processing (EU cars parts shipped to the US for assembly) a very large portion of US car imports into the EU is actually subject to a much lower import duty.
In 2017, only 1 billion euros out of the total value of US cars imports to the EU of 6.5 billion Euros was subject to the full tariff.
I'm all for abolishing tariffs on cars completely.
But did you know that the U.S. charges 25% tariffs on imported trucks (Europe 10%)?
Tariffs vary, but if you compare ALL tariffs levied by the U.S. and Europe, there's not much difference. Very much a non-issue.
Subsidies and regulation are more important trade barriers, but very often it's hard to decide what's intended as a trade barrier and what's not.
Btw there is no "Buy European" Act in the EU. U.S. companies can compete in EU tenders on an equal footing under EU rules.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
06/16/2018 15:30 Comments ||
Top||
#13
FYI - the Buy American clause in US Federal contracts only applies to steel, thanks to a long-ago steel crisis (1980's?). Often, contractors think it's everything, but I read the Federal requirement. Right, Frank?
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/16/2018 15:58 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I'm all for abolishing tariffs on cars completely.
I like replacing a car every 5 years.
Any earlier, charge a 40% luxury tax.
Subsidies and regulation are more important trade barriers, but very often it's hard to decide what's intended as a trade barrier and what's not.
Very true. An often overlooked aspect that can be more significant than tariffs are differences in systems of taxation in various nations. E.g., a VAT acts as a direct export subsidy which often dwarfs the impact of tariffs.
[PJ] What was going on in Donald Trump's head when he tweeted Friday in response to the inspector general's devastating report on the FBI that "Christopher Wray will bring it proudly back!"?
Perhaps the president thought he had better things to do than face another interminable nomination battle for a new director. Or perhaps he was trying to co-opt Wray. But if the FBI is meant to come back, proudly or otherwise, Christopher Wray is not the man. He is part of the problem.
In fact, Wray's continuance as director signals the government is not serious about significantly reforming the FBI and that what changes will be made will be essentially cosmetic, lipstick on the proverbial pig. (The inspector general's report can be read that way as well.)
This is not just because Wray worked under James Comey in his first important job as assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division (2003-2005). That would be guilt by association, although in this instance it's some association. What's more important is what Wray himself has done recently or, more specifically, has not.
#2
Yeah. My dairy farmer father in law called it "greencutting." At least you wind up with silage.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
06/16/2018 3:47 Comments ||
Top||
#3
We need some bad ass scorched earth legal type with a military background to go in there and kiss ass and take names.
I honestly can't think of a single person currently in Washington that is up to the job. It would be the death by a thousand cuts as the MSM would gleefully print every negative leaks and cry of woe and of course make up a few to make this transforming personality look like a cross between Torquemada and Jeffery Daumer.
[Townhall] Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) defended his work with President Trump on certain issues on CNN Friday despite his past criticisms of the president. As CNN’s Kate Bolduan continued to press him on the topic, Graham said he’s worked with Obama in the past and there was a double standard about his work with Trump. He then expressed himself in rather strong terminology saying on live television that he doesn’t "give a s**t" if people don’t like him working with Trump.
Boulduan reminded Graham that he went from hating Trump to working with him and that Trump "comes out and hits you again on whatever he decided to on a given day."
"Do you trust him now?" she asked.
After Graham repeatedly said he did, Bouldan told Graham, "people say this is like two-faced. Where’s the Lindsey Graham of standing up to Donald Trump?"
#5
I do declare. Seems Miss Lindsey might need some time on the faintin’ sofa. Defending oneself from former allies due to switch hittin’ often gives one a case of the vapors somethin’ horrible.
#6
Well, he does have to face us SC voters in 2 more years.
Posted by: Tom ||
06/16/2018 16:16 Comments ||
Top||
#7
South Carolinians are as stupid as Arizonans when it comes to elections. Lins will be re-elected and Kyrsten Enema will be elected to McShame's seat. Just watch.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
06/16/2018 17:23 Comments ||
Top||
"Single-handedly?" No, I think not.
[American Thinker] Naturally, the political/media left that crowds out saner voices on television were quick as jack rabbits to announce that the FBI was vindicated by the IG report that was released on Thursday. "Nothing to see here, move along," was their mantra. But one only has to scroll through the list of columns posted at RealClearPolitics on Friday to grasp the abyss between the left and right re: the report.
The report contained an executive summary that said "We found no documentary evidence of political bias." That means they did not find written confessions by all those Trump-hating higher-ups at the once-great law enforcement agency. But the five-hundred page body of the report is chock full of extreme political anti-Trump mendacity. Why the hundreds of texts between several like-minded agents that reek of profound bias against Trump are not documentary evidence is a mystery.
Nevertheless, it is an indisputable fact that a cabal of conspirators on the seventh floor of the FBI building, led by Comey and McCabe, along with John Brennan (CIA) , James Clapper (DNI) , Sally Yates and Rod Rosenstein at Justice coordinated their attempts to prevent Trump from winning the election by all manner of illegal means. Most likely, much of this was at the bidding and with permission of Barack Obama.
Once Trump won, their focus switched to taking him out before he could be inaugurated. They hope still to see him impeached, despite the thriving economy, low un-employment, and possible rapprochement with North Korea.
The New York Times continues to attack Trump, to accuse him of numerous crimes for which they have no evidence. Leftist voices of rage continue to defend Hillary, to claim she was not treated with sufficient deference, even as her many crimes overlooked. Paul Manafort was sent to jail on Friday while Hillary and this bunch of crooks at the FBI and DOJ are walking free, complaining all the while that Trump should never have been elected.
[National Review] And they won’t be solved by whining about criticism.
What do you do with an FBI agent, sworn to uphold the law, who flagrantly violates the law in a rogue investigation aimed at making a name for himself by bringing down some high-profile targets?
Why . . . you promote him, of course. At least that is the way the Justice Department answered that question in the case of David Chaves, an FBI agent who serially and lawlessly leaked grand-jury information, wiretap evidence, and other sensitive investigative intelligence to the media in his quest to make an insider-trading case against some celebrities. And when finally called on it, the Justice Department circled the wagons: proceeding with its tainted prosecution, referring the now-retired Chaves for an internal investigation that has gone exactly nowhere after nearly two years, and using legal maneuvers to block the courts and the public from scrutinizing the scope of the misconduct.
The Ethos of Law Enforcement - It has become a refrain among defenders of the FBI and Justice Department that critics are trying to destroy these vital institutions. In point of fact, these agencies are doing yeoman’s work destroying themselves ‐ much to the chagrin of those of us who spent much of our professional lives proudly carrying out their mission.
The problem is not the existence of miscreants; they are an inevitable part of the human condition, from which no institution of any size will ever be immune. The challenge today is the ethos of law-enforcement. You see it in texts expressing disdain for lawmakers; in the above-it-all contempt for legislative oversight; in arrogant flouting of the Gang of Eight disclosure process for sensitive intelligence (because the FBI’s top-tier unilaterally decides when Bureau activities are "too sensitive" to discuss); in rogue threats to turn the government’s law-enforcement powers against Congress; and in the imperious self-perception of a would-be fourth branch of government, insulated from and unaccountable to the others ‐ including its actual executive-branch superiors.
Once law enforcement saw the virtue in self-policing, in a duty to expose and purge itself of rogue actors. Now, it tends toward not just burying bad behavior but ‐ the best defense being a good offense ‐ hiding it behind claims of a job well done, behind claims that its ends are so noble its means are justified no matter how unseemly.
In the years after the "Great Recession," progressives were frustrated by the incapacity of prosecutors to hold financial institutions responsible for the subprime-mortgage crisis and the housing crash, to which government policies had contributed mightily. One response was a flurry of securities-fraud investigations: If you can’t nail the evil banks, at least nail big-time market players, even if less than compelling evidence needs propping up by extravagant legal theories. Continues
[Hot Air] The American Pharmacists Association was planning a large convention for early next year, one that would require a site capable of hosting up to 6,000 attendees. One of the places it considered holding the convention was Seattle, so it sent an advanced planning team to the city to scout the area. But the homeless problem the planning team encountered on Seattle’s streets led them to write a letter to Seattle’s tourism bureau saying they might have to rule Seattle out for future consideration.
It’s not just the sights and smells that are off-putting to tourists, it’s the danger of being around people with serious mental problems. Case in point, today Seattle news outlets are reporting an incident which happened earlier this month: A tourist who went downtown to see Seattle’s famous Space Needle with his family was attacked by a homeless man with a rope.
#4
My last visit to SF, a city I used to love showing off to Bay Area visitors, was for a national convention. So many homeless to deal with, crapping on the sidewalks, drug use in the doorways left a very bad impression on me.
In addition, our once proud industry event had "lunch" at the Moscone Center... a box lunch of the most horrible lowest quality ingredients I have ever been served. People were tossing out everything except the chips. Attendees were all complaining loudly. I happen to know the event organizer, and I went to give her a heads up that pitchforks were coming out. She turned to me, knowing she could trust me, and said "we are never coming back here... that box lunch cost us $58 per person!... I worked a couple of hundred trade events in my life and that ranked one of the worst.
#6
I'm really not going to recommend Iowa, because they think they are something special come election time. Had a very nice time in Dallas at the NRA convention, town whas cleanes I can ever remember seeing it. It's been a while, but the nicest people I ever met in my life were in Ft. Wayne, Indiana.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
06/16/2018 15:26 Comments ||
Top||
[The Lid] There is a dangerous trend that is taking place on college campuses across America and the Western world. It’s been building for decades, but it’s never been more dangerous or disturbing than it is today. No longer do our Universities strive to be places of higher education ‐ teaching our kids science, math, history, literature, or critical thinking ‐ today, their highest goal is to indoctrinate our kids to think as they do and to act in a manner accordant with their philosophy of progressivism.
Today’s professors were radicalized while at University in the 60s and 70s, and they never left their ivory towers. Now, with no real problems to protest they manufacture them and demand that their little soldiers’ go out and force the culture at large to bend to their radical beliefs.
Instead of learning about how the world works and what they can do to make it a better place, today’s college students are browbeaten and brainwashed into seeing evil and hatred wherever they look. Instead of making the world better, today’s college students are making it an uglier, meaner, and less civilized place.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[American Thinker] Here's a thought experiment: what happens if you release criminals, a lot of them, from jail?
[Townhall] On Wednesday, the American Medical Association approved an expansive list of "common-sense" demands for new gun control measures, including proposals to ban the sale and possession of "all assault-type weapons, bump stocks and related devices, high-capacity magazines, and armor piercing bullets." These gun control guidelines were approved by the AMA’s House of Delegates, a forum of the medical organization’s member physicians that meets twice a year to vote on medical and political policy recommendations.
[National Review] And they won’t be solved by whining about criticism.
[The Lid] There is a dangerous trend that is taking place on college campuses across America and the Western world. It’s been building for decades, but it’s never been more dangerous or disturbing than it is today. No longer do our Universities strive to be places of higher education ‐ teaching our kids science, math, history, literature, or critical thinking ‐ today, their highest goal is to indoctrinate our kids to think as they do and to act in a manner accordant with their philosophy of progressivism.
