[Hot Air] "He is going to continue to cooperate with the government, pursuant to his plea agreement," said Powell today in an interview with The Hill about her new client after the news broke. But why would Flynn hire Sidney Powell if he intends to keep cooperating? She’s been harshly anti-Mueller for months and a critic of former Mueller deputy Andrew Weissmann for years, having written an entire book about her experience opposing him in the Enron case. (Powell herself describes Weissmann as the book’s "lead villain.")
She created a website awhile back about Team Mueller called "Creeps on a Mission" in which she accused them of angling "to destabilize and destroy this President" before Mueller ultimately declined to accuse Trump of either conspiracy or obstruction. Both her book and a t-shirt are available for sale at the site.
Mueller was chosen to fail. When the Flynn plea deal collapses, the left will hold it up as proof that a new special counsel must be appointed to start at square one.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
06/13/2019 7:00 Comments ||
Flynn is a Democrat who worked on the Trump campaign. I never quite understood that. He hired a lobbying law firm Covington & Burling LLP to represent him. This is Eric Holder's, Lanny Breuer's (Fast and Furious), John Boltons firm. The only reason for Flynn hiring Covington & Burling LLP is that they are well-connected and understand Washington ways. I wondered whether Covington & Burling LLP would well-serve Flynn at the time he hired them. Maybe Sidney Powell will better represent him. She certainly doesn't seem to have much respect for the Mueller proctology probe of Flynn and Trump.
It would be great fun to find out some day all the problematic people Trump has allowed around his administration was not 4-D or 5-D but 27-D chess. But Occams Razor says it's just sloppiness that couda should wouda been avoided if 2-D chess was in play.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
06/13/2019 13:14 Comments ||
I think there's an optimization selection process in play M. He's choosing his battles when he can.
"What's the greatest upset, affecting positively the most voters, with the least engagement of other offices I can achieve, that will snowball under it's own critical mass to a desired conclusion."
Rebuild the FBI? Sure but that really doesn't affect you and me.
Break the international Deep State intelligence alliance? Why not, that will slow roll thru Mueller and the AG until the election.
Mideast oil? Let's build a pipeline from Canada and cut their sales by half.
Torpedoed tankers? They deliver to other markets.
China in South America/South Pacific? Hit their manufacturing. Make their products price comparable with items manufactured here.
Iran with a bomb? Not a current problem. We can bomb them to shit before they launch.
Flynn had an honorable career with the military.
Upon retirement he established the Flynn Intel Group, Inc. He was a registered foreign agent.
His group had substantial revenue including from from the Russians and Erdogan's Turks. My sympathy for the guy is limited.
Posted by: lord garth ||
06/13/2019 16:36 Comments ||
Mr. Trump has had the same problem hiring people as president as he had as a candidate: so many of the qualified people from both parties refused to work with him. So he’s ended up with more fringe characters than his predecessors and competitors.
He (Gowdy) also discovered that there was Top Secret information contained within her personally archived email. ( Let’s not forget at least 10 CIA spies in china were killed by the Chinese because of the leaks and god knows what else occurred)
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
06/13/2019 13:32 Comments ||
Old news, and needs a bit of salt.
All of those misstatements and misrepresentations appeared in just the first few sentences of the “FBI Corruption … Decades in a Nutshell” commentary. It’s clear that its claims are misleading, and in some cases outright false. We’re not going to bother fact-checking the rest of it. Given that many of the details are rooted in fact but are presented inaccurately, we’re calling this commentary “misleading.”
Far too often, pundits and politicians alike make the case that America should avoid another cold war, this time with China. There is a problem with this argument. America doesn’t get to choose whether or not to start another cold war.
...China chose to start this cold war; we are already in the middle of it. America doesn’t get a say unless it wants to lie down and lose. It isn’t the same type of cold war, and each side has different objectives, but it is contentious no less.
If America wants to win the Second Cold War, it has to do several broad things, but for one it has first to acknowledge that it is already ongoing.
Unlike the Soviet Union, the Red Chinese can match us in an arms race. Just like the Soviet Union, they are stuck buying stuff that's not very useful unless it's actually used. We have the same problem but we make better stuff cheaper when it comes to first strike capable weapons. In the end, we can win by trading less with them and getting away from the idiotic notion of managed decline as a diplomatic doctrine.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
06/13/2019 12:26 Comments ||
Don't need to beat them,
just stop buying their shit.
[Defense News] WASHINGTON ‐ At extremely high altitudes, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps’ versions of the F-35 jet can only fly at supersonic speeds for short bursts of time before there is a risk of structural damage and loss of stealth capability, a problem that may make it impossible for the Navy’s F-35C to conduct supersonic intercepts.
The Defense Department does not intend to field a fix for the problem, which influences not only the F-35’s airframe and the low-observable coating that keeps it stealthy, but also the myriad antennas located on the back of the plane that are currently vulnerable to damage, according to documents exclusively obtained by Defense News.
The F-35 Joint Program Office has classified the issues for the "B" and "C" models as separate category 1 deficiencies, indicating in one document that the problem presents a challenge to accomplishing one of the key missions of the fighter jet. In this scale, category 1 represents the most serious type of deficiency.
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/13/2019 9:38 Comments ||
My SWAG: Less atmo pressure so the afterburner cone spreads out faster. On the B, the shorter nozzle (vs A) allows the afterburner stream to overheat/overpressure the coating. On the C, the horizontal tail is longer (vs A) resulting the effect as the B.
The Defense Department does not intend to field a fix for the problem
It only showed one time on the B & C during testing and has not been duplicated but afterburner restrictions remain for now.
Vice Adm. Mat Winter, who leads the F-35 program on behalf of the Pentagon, told Defense News that the department has taken steps to mitigate the problem with an improved spray-on coating, but added that the government will not completely fix it — instead accepting additional risk.
As justification for the decision, Winter noted that the issue was documented while the jet was flying at the very edge of its flight envelope. He also said the phenomenon only occurred once for both the B and C models, despite numerous attempts to replicate the conditions that caused the problem.
“How often do we expect something like that to occur?” he said. “It's very, very small.”
Greg Ulmer, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 program head, said there have been no cases of this problem occurring in the operational fleet and that incidents have been limited to the “highest extremes of flight testing conditions that are unlikely replicated in operational scenarios.”
Posted by: Gloger Spawn of the Gepids2733 ||
06/13/2019 10:20 Comments ||
The stealth F150 doesn't manifest the problem because of it's constrained operating velocity.
HA! I had a used 1983 way back when that I beat the rest of the way to death on NJ fire roads. Thanks for the flashback, I haven't thought about that rattle trap in years.
What is going on with the unending Brexit drama, the aftershocks of Donald Trump's election and the "yellow vests" protests in France? What drives the growing estrangement of southern and eastern Europe from the European Union establishment? What fuels the anti-EU themes of recent European elections and the stunning recent Australian re-election of conservatives?
Put simply, the middle classes are revolting against Western managerial elites. The latter group includes professional politicians, entrenched bureaucrats, condescending academics, corporate phonies and propagandistic journalists.
What are the popular gripes against them?
One, illegal immigration and open borders have led to chaos. Lax immigration policies have taxed social services and fueled multicultural identity politics, often to the benefit of boutique leftist political agendas.
Two, globalization enriched the cosmopolitan elites who found worldwide markets for their various services. New global markets and commerce meant Western nations outsourced, offshored and ignored their own industries and manufacturing (or anything dependent on muscular labor that could be replaced by cheaper workers abroad).
Three, unelected bureaucrats multiplied and vastly increased their power over private citizens. The targeted middle classes lacked the resources to fight back against the royal armies of tenured regulators, planners, auditors, inspectors and adjustors who could not be fired and were never accountable.
Four, the new global media reached billions and indoctrinated rather than reported.
Five, academia became politicized as a shrill agent of cultural transformation rather than focusing on education -- while charging more for less learning.
Six, utopian social planning increased housing, energy and transportation costs.
One common gripe framed all these diverse issues: The wealthy had the means and influence not to be bothered by higher taxes and fees or to avoid them altogether. Not so much the middle classes, who lacked the clout of the virtue-signaling rich and the romance of the distant poor.
In other words, elites never suffered the firsthand consequences of their own ideological fiats.
When you pay up front (taxes) and on the back end (consequences of political policies) and have essentially no say in either one nor any reason to be satisfied with the outcome, WTF else are you going to be?
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
06/13/2019 11:45 Comments ||
Because, for the last several decades, the Western elites have been making war on us.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
06/13/2019 12:18 Comments ||
I wish people would stop calling them 'elite'. It's like putting a label 'extraordinary' on dogshit.
(noun)/ a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society.
This is by no means true. Even a cursory examination of their credentials or record of achievements (with actual significance) will reveal that what are being referred to as elites are some mediocre actors, academic poseurs, dabblers not experts in the sciences, snobs with some kind of windfall behind them, riding the momentum of accidental recognition or encashing on the stupidity of the ignorant masses.
Not a con. Your refusal to acknowledge an oligarchy because you dearly want to believe in democracy is not a con. It's denial on your part.
One of the fatal flaws of the republic was to have an entire branch with life appointments and no real accountability. As with human nature, the aggrandizement of power happened, just took a bit longer than normal.
Another was to engage in being the world's policeman thus concentrating even more power in the Executive than was ever intended. The Constitution was not designed for that.
We are never going to sell people on allegedly conservative principles that end up making conservatives less free. After all, when we sell conservatism, we are selling freedom, in contrast to the perpetual soul-killing tyranny offered by leftist ideology. So, the idea that conservative principles require us to defer to the growing oppression of the left because it is delivered through the medium of allegedly private corporations is nonsense.
Don’t want none? Don’t start none. That’s one of my conservative principles. The corporations started it, and now it’s our right ‐ our duty ‐ to finish it.
The fussy Bow Tie Boyz of conservatism will tell you that this calls your conservative bona fides into question. Well, question away. If "conservatism" means I have to take guff from some goateed 20-something helming a unicorn start-up who thinks I have way too many rights and way too much privilege because my ancestors came from Stuttgart and I wield a penis, count me out of conservatism. I am utterly indifferent to whether the aspiring dictator who seeks to force me to obey is a government employee or a corporate CEO. Neither is acceptable, meaning I will not accept either.
Everything "big tech" controls only started to exist recently. People somehow managed before the telegraph. Even after it arrived it was scarce in terms of deployment. Same for telephone, radio and TV. Watch some individual (usually a woman of any age except really old) clinging to a cellphone. How did this individual manage to exist before the cellphone? Somehow, we know, or they wouldn't be there right now yapping away. Just because this stuff became widespread in very short order doesn't mean it's any different from the tech advances mentioned above that rolled out more slowly. Whatever comes next will roll out so fast the current tech barons won't even have time to figure out which way to run. Meanwhile, the notion you are cut off if you can't be on farcebook, gurgle, crapple or sh*tter is a notion in your head alone.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
06/13/2019 12:37 Comments ||
It's also worth mentioning that the left self censors big time. Caught any big name tech bloggers admitting they always knew their good buddy "Dr. Pizza" was a paedo? No, of course you didn't cause they are clammed up completely about it.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
06/13/2019 13:08 Comments ||
[The Federalist] A newly updated version of Thomas Sowell’s book, "Discrimination and Disparities," came out this spring. The author and famed economist sat down with writer David Hogberg to talk about it and his life’s work.
David Hogberg: I want to read to you something that a currently very popular actress by the name of Brie Larson said at a recent awards show. She stated that, "USC Annenberg’s Inclusiveness Initiative released findings that 67 percent of the top critics reviewing the 100 highest grossing movies in 2017 were white males. Less than a quarter were white women and less than 10 percent were unrepresented men. Only 2.5 percent of those top critics were women of color. Now you’re probably thinking right now that ... doesn’t represent the country I live in. And that’s true. This is a huge disconnect from the U.S. population breakdown of 30 percent white men, 30 percent white women, 20 percent men of color, and 20 percent women of color. So, why does that matter? ... If you make a movie that is a love letter to women of color, there is an insanely low chance a woman of color will be able to see your movie and review your movie ... We need to be conscious of our bias and do our part to make sure that everyone is in the room."
That’s an example of the main fallacy that you expose in your book, correct?
Thomas Sowell: It’s one of the many fallacies. My God! We could play the same game with basketball and get even greater skewed representation. Blacks are the vast majority of basketball players in the NBA. That quote is downright silly.
What’s become so frustrating to me over the years is people who assume that if people or events are not evenly represented, then that’s some deviation from the norm. But you can read through reams of what scholars have written and find that nowhere is this norm to be found. You can read people like Gradell and others who have studied internationally various cultural events, and they say again and again that nowhere do they find a distribution of people who is representative of the population of the larger society.
So [people like Larson] are taking something that no one can find and making it a norm, the deviations from which should cause the government to intervene to correct this supposedly rare thing.
Hogberg: What is the "Invincible Fallacy"?
Sowell: It’s what been illustrated by the example you mentioned. It’s the belief that people would be, in the normal course of events, proportionally represented in various endeavors in the way they are represented in the general population. And if that doesn’t happen it must be some kind of negative factor like either genetics or discrimination that is causing the deviation.
[Breitbart] U.S. Women’s National Soccer team co-captain Megan Rapinoe refused to sing the national anthem during Tuesday’s World Cup game in France, only six days after the 75th anniversary of D-Day.
Rapinioe stood silent with her arms behind her back as the rest of the U.S. team placed their hands over their hearts and sang the Star-Spangled Banner ahead of Tuesday’s game in Reims, France.
The 33-year-old U.S. star kept a stony demeanor as the rest of her team sang the Star-Spangled Banner in the Auguste-Delaune Stadium.
Rapinoe had already warned that she would "never sing the anthem again."
"I’ll probably never put my hand over my heart. I’ll probably never sing the national anthem again," Rapinoe said in May adding she views herself as "a walking protest when it comes to the Trump administration," because of "everything I stand for."
"I feel like it’s kind of defiance in and of itself to just be who I am and wear the jersey, and represent it," Rapinoe said. "Because I’m as talented as I am, I get to be here, you don’t get to tell me if I can be here or not. So, it’s kind of a good ’F you’ to any sort of inequality or bad sentiments that the [Trump] administration might have towards people who don’t look exactly like him. Which, God help us if we all looked like him. Scary. Really scary. Ahh, disturbing."
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.