To give a little context
Below is the map of counties and independent cities that have elected to declare that they will enforce no law that is in contradiction with the 2nd Amendment of the United States of America. That's a lot of blue (not blue for Democrats in this case). To add even more context, that's 93 of the 133 counties and independent cities that make up the Commonwealth of Virginia. That's 70% of the State, so far. And of the remaining 40, only five have said "we fear guns more than we love our rights".
Ditto, Mr. Comey
Chris Wallace is on a roll, hosting James ("I preserved deniability") Comey as well as Adam Schiff on their FBI FISA scandal apology tours. Like Schiff, Comey claims he was simply unaware of the FISA abuse at the time. Really, how was he to know? Schiff's excuse, in comparison, is almost straightforward: at least Schiff doesn't labor under the difficulty of having been the duped supervisor of the abusive agents. Comey is left having to argue, basically, "Hey, I've done worse" and "we still haven't entirely ruled out the possibility that there's a shred of truth hiding somewhere in the Steele dossier."
It's almost as if Comey had come to understand why he should have been fired:
It's almost as if Comey had come to understand why he should have been fired:
"He's right, I was wrong," Comey said about how the FBI used the FISA process, adding, "I was overconfident as director in our procedures," and that what happened "was not acceptable."The Ace commenters are having a field day with the "I was overconfident in our procedures" defense, applying it to General Custer, the captain of the Titanic, the director of the Metropolitan Correction Center, General Pickett. I'm left wondering whether there's a witness out there who can demonstrate that Comey might just possibly have insisted on a little investigation into the most momentous warrant of his career before signing it (even if, as the Ace guys say, he didn't "sign"-sign it), and who might be considering singing like a bird sometime soon.
Sure you would have, Mr. Schiff
At least Adam Schiff no longer is (as so many still are) arguing that the Horowitz report isn't a scathing rebuke of the FBI's FISA abuses. He is, however, asserting to fellow-traveler Chris Wallace that he's shocked, shocked to discover the abuses at this late date:
“I’m certainly willing to admit the inspector general found serious abuses of FISA that I was unaware of,” he said to host Chris Wallace. “Had I known of them, Chris, yes I would have called out the FBI at the same time.“Not that I take this protestation of retroactive good faith at face value, but it does lay the ground for serious difficulty as soon as someone can establish that obviously he was on notice of the FISA abuses two years ago. Schiff's reputation for honesty being roughly on a par with his reputation for painstaking avoidance of leaving an incriminating paper trail ("I never met with the whistleblower and don't even know who he is!"), this shouldn't even pose a minor hurdle for the sleuths.
Cocaine Mitch Says “No Chance”
I remember during the Kavanaugh hearings, despite all the drama, Mitch McConnell declared early on that approval was certain. It looked like it came down to the wire, but I had heard from a friend who works for another Senator that McConnell had the votes early. The rest was just drama.
Today he says there is “no chance the President will be removed.”
Today he says there is “no chance the President will be removed.”
Jólakötturinn
The name means “Yule Cat,” more or less, but it is not at all nice — perhaps Trollish.
Title IX
A major ruling from the 6th Circuit has made some unhappy.
“What judges should keep in mind is that it’s a choice,” Dunn said. “There’s an ability to interpret the law and you have to decide what perspective you’re coming from. A lot of conservative ones think, ‘We’re going to be close to the law.’ I really suggest you think about the effect on social issues.”
Worst Putin stooge ever
Don Surber tries to understand the received wisdom:
Having endured 3 years of this conspiracy theory by the tinfoil-hatted mainstream pundits, I am left with 10 questions.
Why did Putin want to Make America Great Again?
Why did Putin want America to rollback unnecessary regulations?
Why did Putin want Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, and 50 new conservative judges on America's appellate courts?
Why did Putin want our personal income and corporate tax rates cut?
Why did Putin want our unemployment rate dropped to 3.5%?
Why did Putin want us to become a net exporter of oil for the first time in 70 years?
Why did Putin want us to replace our broken fences with a 30-foot wall along the Mexican border?
Why did Putin want us to renegotiate trade deals, and to walk away from TPP and the Paris Climate Thingamabob?
Why did Putin want us to move our embassy to Jerusalem?
And lastly, why did Putin want us to impose more economic sanctions on Russia?
I am beginning to think that President Trump is as big a failure at being a puppet as he is a failure at being Hitler.
Don't call my bluff
I didn't see this tactic coming:
Senate Dems to McConnell: "Why, if you don't promise to make the Senate impeachment trial procedure less of a kangaroo court than we just inflicted on the country in the House, we'll . . . we'll . . . we'll get our House Dem colleagues to refuse to approve the articles of impeachment in the full House vote, that's what we'll do. Then where will you be?"
Situations like this make me think of the old joke about the missionaries being fattened up for the cannibal pot. Told that their skins will be used to make canoes, one of them grabs a fork, pierces his arms and legs repeatedly, and yells "I'll fix your darn canoe!"
On the other hand, if Pelosi were looking for an excuse for a mercy killing for the articles of impeachment . . . . But nah. For all the talk about not whipping the vote, she must know what a disaster a down-vote in the full House would be. They'd be lining up to use that new 988 number. At least if this absurd business goes to trial, they can blame their loss on the Republican trial procedure, and in that light, the more rushed and unfair the better. After all, the Dems' holding the initial investigation in a darkened dungeon did immeasurable good for the President.
Senate Democrats are quietly talking about asking Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to hold articles of impeachment in the House until Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) agrees to a fair rules package for a Senate trial.Senate Democrats explained that this is their only chance to exert leverage over Mitch McConnell, who has his caucus completely lined up and won't need to get the consent of any intransigent Dems to whatever trial procedure he chooses to jam through on short notice.
Senate Dems to McConnell: "Why, if you don't promise to make the Senate impeachment trial procedure less of a kangaroo court than we just inflicted on the country in the House, we'll . . . we'll . . . we'll get our House Dem colleagues to refuse to approve the articles of impeachment in the full House vote, that's what we'll do. Then where will you be?"
Situations like this make me think of the old joke about the missionaries being fattened up for the cannibal pot. Told that their skins will be used to make canoes, one of them grabs a fork, pierces his arms and legs repeatedly, and yells "I'll fix your darn canoe!"
On the other hand, if Pelosi were looking for an excuse for a mercy killing for the articles of impeachment . . . . But nah. For all the talk about not whipping the vote, she must know what a disaster a down-vote in the full House would be. They'd be lining up to use that new 988 number. At least if this absurd business goes to trial, they can blame their loss on the Republican trial procedure, and in that light, the more rushed and unfair the better. After all, the Dems' holding the initial investigation in a darkened dungeon did immeasurable good for the President.
House Judiciary Committee Approves 2 Articles of Impeachment
According to USA Today:
WASHINGTON – For the third time U.S. history, the House of Representatives will vote on the impeachment of a president after the House Judiciary Committee approved two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Friday.The committee voted along party lines to approve both impeachment articles following a marathon hearing that went late into Thursday evening.The articles – one on President Donald Trump's alleged abuse of power and the other on obstruction of Congress during the impeachment inquiry -- were both approved in separate votes by a 23-17 margin with Democrats for and Republicans against.
What are your predictions? I think the House Democrats will make the vote on the best day for their primaries to make the best political use of something they know will fail in the Senate, and they will impeach on a party-line vote. But I'm sleep-deprived at the moment, so you shouldn't listen to me.
How about you? What do you think will happen next?
Witness protection
Now it's not enough to leave California, you have to change your identity and avoid ever doing business with anyone there again.
Whee
One of the most fun parts of a blowout conservative election is the editorial scrambling and the losers' bitter explanations for their failure. Yesterday brought us the priceless "We won the argument, if not the election," which has to be up there with "I can't imagine how he got elected, no one I know voted for him."
There's also the 2016 Krugman Pronouncement: this unexpected trouncing of my allies spells doom for the economy. We may never recover. Last week's UK editorials had largely given up on Labor's victory, so they spent a lot of time worrying that the Conservatives wouldn't command a convincing majority. Maybe they would try and fail to cobble together a coalition.
CNBC worried earlier this week that the pound wouldn't fully recover from damaged inflicted by the recent parliamentary stalemate. Ink was lavished over the danger that businesses wouldn't invest in an atmosphere of uncertainty over their beloved EU. Interested readers of that CNBC analysis may glance at the bottom of the page and find today's update: sterling surges on historic BoJo win. The author can't help speculating, though, on how this stunning turn of events might still give a little hope that the Brexit stalemate could still drag itself along by its fingernails:
Meanwhile, the execrable anti-semite Communist Corbyn says he will resign, but not right away. Certainly before the next election, but he's taking some time for "reflection." Not to be outdone, everyone's favorite spybuster, Christopher Steele, announces that BoJo is a Russian asset. As Sarah Hoyt says, in the future we'll all be Russian spies for 15 minutes.
There's also the 2016 Krugman Pronouncement: this unexpected trouncing of my allies spells doom for the economy. We may never recover. Last week's UK editorials had largely given up on Labor's victory, so they spent a lot of time worrying that the Conservatives wouldn't command a convincing majority. Maybe they would try and fail to cobble together a coalition.
CNBC worried earlier this week that the pound wouldn't fully recover from damaged inflicted by the recent parliamentary stalemate. Ink was lavished over the danger that businesses wouldn't invest in an atmosphere of uncertainty over their beloved EU. Interested readers of that CNBC analysis may glance at the bottom of the page and find today's update: sterling surges on historic BoJo win. The author can't help speculating, though, on how this stunning turn of events might still give a little hope that the Brexit stalemate could still drag itself along by its fingernails:
The analyst added that if a big majority over all other parties is realized then Johnson may now have the scope to “ignore the Brexiteers in his party and provide businesses with some certainty by quickly extending the transition period.”I'm sure that's what the surging sterling tells us about what business investors--and voters--want to see: a further extended "transition" period. The whole thing has simply been too rushed and abrupt. On the other hand, from Johnson's victory speech this morning:
"And with this mandate and this majority we will at last be able to do what?" (Crowd shouts "Get Brexit done".)By the way, all 18 Brexit defectors lost their seats. There's a convincing mandate for delay for you.
Meanwhile, the execrable anti-semite Communist Corbyn says he will resign, but not right away. Certainly before the next election, but he's taking some time for "reflection." Not to be outdone, everyone's favorite spybuster, Christopher Steele, announces that BoJo is a Russian asset. As Sarah Hoyt says, in the future we'll all be Russian spies for 15 minutes.
BREXIT At Last
The voters have reinforced the government’s clarity over in the UK. Good for them — the chaos will be over, at least. The Resistance was firmly defeated.
Scotland may go independent, and Ireland may unify at long last. A general victory for many good causes.
Scotland may go independent, and Ireland may unify at long last. A general victory for many good causes.
Just for Fun: A British Vocal Coach Reacts to the Hu
It has the Hu, Tolkein comparisons, and a bubbly young London voice coach reacting to hearing Mongolian throat singing for the first time. Enjoy!
Or, you know, skip it if you're not in to bubbly.
Update: I think English translations have been added to all of the Hu's official videos. Interesting stuff.
Or, you know, skip it if you're not in to bubbly.
Update: I think English translations have been added to all of the Hu's official videos. Interesting stuff.
A Lot Hangs
Virginia’s New Democratic government will be a lesson to the nation. Which lesson they choose to teach will be one of the major determinants of how 2020 breaks in purple states.
Imponderables
Andy McCarthy on the unwillingness to draw obvious conclusions: We may never know the motive of those people in the FBI.
A followup from another Powerline post:
Incompetence is something fairly easily addressed in performance reviews involving a record of success and a record of violations of policies that have been demonstrated to result in success without injustice or scandal in past investigations. Corruption might instead entail discovering whether someone's otherwise inexplicable mix of failures and successes in achieving law enforcement goals that held up on appeal corresponded with a pattern of various illicit motives. Was the agent taking bribes? Was he a victim of extortion? Was he a political operative? Was he an agent of a foreign power? Was he merely ambitious, unprincipled, and willing to do whatever his superiors wanted?--in which case the inquiry shifts to the motives of the superiors. Right up the chain of command.
We can't always roll our eyes and say we can never look into another person's soul and determine a motives with certainty. A glaring pattern of failures may be exactly what points us to criminal violations.
A followup from another Powerline post:
Consider one example of the misconduct Horowitz identified. An FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, obtained information that Carter Page, the subject of a FISA order, had gathered intelligence about Russia for that agency and was reliable — a fact that would cut against the notion that Page was working for the Russians. Clinesmith doctored the email conveying this information. He inserted the words “not a source,” even though he had been told that Page was a source.
Clinesmith then passed the doctored email on to the FBI agent who was assigned to affirm under oath the FBI’s allegations to the FISA court. That agent had told Clinesmith that he wanted “a definitive answer to whether Page had ever been a source for another U.S. government agency before he signed the final renewal application.” By doctoring the email, Clinesmith definitively gave the agent an answer he knew was wrong.
We know from direct evidence that Clinesmith was aligned with the resistance to Trump. However, even without that direct evidence, one should conclude, absent a satisfactory explanation for the doctoring, that Clinesmith doctored it intentionally and for a bad motive. Even without direct evidence of bias, one should conclude that Clinesmith was out to get Trump.These are good points, highlighting the problem of how to address the shocking failures in the FBI and DOJ in the FISA warrant abuse uncovered in Crossfire Hurricane. Were the failures incompetent, or corrupt? That determination makes a difference in how you might craft reform measures.
Incompetence is something fairly easily addressed in performance reviews involving a record of success and a record of violations of policies that have been demonstrated to result in success without injustice or scandal in past investigations. Corruption might instead entail discovering whether someone's otherwise inexplicable mix of failures and successes in achieving law enforcement goals that held up on appeal corresponded with a pattern of various illicit motives. Was the agent taking bribes? Was he a victim of extortion? Was he a political operative? Was he an agent of a foreign power? Was he merely ambitious, unprincipled, and willing to do whatever his superiors wanted?--in which case the inquiry shifts to the motives of the superiors. Right up the chain of command.
We can't always roll our eyes and say we can never look into another person's soul and determine a motives with certainty. A glaring pattern of failures may be exactly what points us to criminal violations.
They've never heard of it either
The Bee: Trump's popularity surges as nation discovers he obstructed Congress.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)