April 28, 2018
— Open Blogger
Welcome to the almost world famous Ace of Spades Pet Thread. Appreciate you stopping by. Grab a beverage and kick back and relax for a while.
Thought of the day: "Longevity in life should be measured in how many dogs you loved and how many loved you instead of years." h/t Mike Hammer more...
— Open Blogger
Botanical explorer Godfrey Sykes whimsically bestowed the name "boojum" on this species. He took the name from Lewis Carroll's poem "The Hunting of the Snark." In the poem, a boojum is a mysterious form the snark takes, and anyone who looks at the boojum disappears.
Dramatic. And to show you how people think in Phoenix, there is a wedding venue there named after this tree. In the wild, its range is more restricted than that of its relative, the Ocotillo, which you have probably seen if you have been to the low desert.
I started thinking about tree names this week because Blake sent in some information and photos on a tree that's new to me. People have been imaginative in giving it names. More on that later. more...
— Open Blogger
Last night, in the car, I happened to hear the story of a young journalist who went undercover in North Korea on The Moth. Yes, on NPR. She noted that everyone in the country had to lie, to pretend, constantly in order to survive. She has written a book about her experiences. Kim Jong-il died on the day she was scheduled to leave the country. She did not get to say goodbye to her young male students, but she noted the vacant, frightened look in their eyes. The center of their existence was suddenly gone, and they were herded off to a meeting.
Here's a piece she wrote in November of 2017 to the young men she had taught. She hoped they would forget her in preference to engaging in any risky behavior based on a memory of her. Wonder if the young leader of North Korea will be able to maintain that kind of ignorance for much longer? Things are changing, one way or another.
How might the people of North Korea go about re-ordering their identities, even partially, as the isolation of their kingdom unravels? The regime has directed their actions and goals for so long. more...
— Open Blogger
Mornin' Morons. Hook up that caffeine drip and let's take a look at some events that didn't get too much attention here at the AoSHQ this week.
— Open Blogger Not seen here: My latest finished DIY project, postponed due to an April illness courtesy of my little girl.
I'm not sure what it is, but I'm at the stage where my teeth and hair follicles hurt. I won't tell you what else hurts, because I'm a gentleman.
April 27, 2018
— Open Blogger Start with one funny or interesting picture,
— Open Blogger As John Sexton reports, even liberal outlets are calling bullshit on Joy Reid's claims, and not just on general principles -- her claims have no evidence behind them and the "proofs" of #Hacking she's offered are falling apart.
One claim of #Hacking she made was that one blog post was made during her show, and it's impossible to post while doing a show.
Um, Jake Tapper DMd me in a back-and-forth to argue about his show while his show was on the air.
I had asked on Twitter if he was ever going to ask Democrats why they were claiming the "election was hacked," since he likes posing as someone who is against conspiracy theories and fake news. Except when Democrats are spreading them.
In a DM, while he was on the air, he asked what the source for my claim that Democrats were saying the election itself was hacked, and I told him: Hillary Clinton just said it.
He said, Where is she supposed to have said this?, and I told him:
It was just on your show. Right now. One minute ago. Before the commercial break. The package you announced had your reporter playing back video of Hillary giving a speech where she claimed "the election was hacked."
I further told him: You literally just did a quick back-and-forth with the reporter who filed this video report. You just talked about it.
This is why I say Jake Tapper spends all day in people's Twitter DMs attempting to spin his reputation. Dude was so fucking into arguing with me in DMs he was DMing me during his own damn show and missing the very news I was asking him about, because he was too busy giving me grief in my DMs.
He was watching my fucking Twitter feed instead of his own damn news show. Had he actually been watching the news package he'd just introduced instead of scanning Twitter for negative mentions, he might have seen the very news I was asking about.
Because I wasn't quite at war with him at that time, I said something conciliatory like No big deal, I know, you've got a lot of balls in the air.
But I didn't mean it. Dude, watch your own fucking show instead of arguing with critics in DMs.
Anyway, you can post while you're doing a live show. And the post that Joy Reid supposedly couldn't possibly post while her show was on was a loose-thought toss off consisting of thirty off-the-top of her head words.
Her lawyer, asked if there were any other examples of such Impossible Posts, admitted he hadn't found any.
So she's lying. And not only is she lying: she's got the FBI investigating her false claims.
Which could be illegal, if the FBI ever decides to prosecute liberals like conservatives.
People keep saying she shouldn't be fired for unpopular opinions.
Well, she's supposed to be a journalist, isn't she? Aren't journalists supposed to tell the truth? Isn't that what they're always telling us? Isn't that why they're supposedly better than other citizens who, presumably, just lie all the time?
If she's lying -- which she is -- she should be fired.
Unless journalists want to admit that lying is an important part of their tradecraft -- which would be fine with me.
Meanwhile, additional tidbits have turned up in her blog-- I mean, her #Hacked blog, of course.
Like Joy Reid saying that in the Rosie O'Donnell vs. Trump feud -- way back from 2007 -- she was on Team Trump, baby!
Now, this is a leftwing woman -- what reason would she have to back Trump, except for poisonous racist #homophobia?
In a January 9th  blog post, Reid weighed in on the celebrity feud between "The View" host O'Donnell and Trump. Earlier in the feud, Trump had called O'Donnell "a real loser," a "slob" with a "fat, ugly face," and "fat little Rosie."
Nonetheless, the liberal pundit was on Team Donald.
"How much longer until that chubbed-out shrew Rosie O'Donnell gets her fat ass canned by Babwa?" Reid asked, in an imitation of "The View" co-host Barbara Walters' first name.
"How much longer will the freak show that is The View' continue to darken our television screens?" she continued. "How much more kick-ass funny can Donald Trump be???"
Indeed, Joy. Indeed.
Whoops: I had that MKH/Sanctimony thread posted with tomorrow's date, so the last two posts actually posted beneath it. If you didn't see them, they're below.
Sorry, I guess I took a page from Hillary Clinton and decided that it has to be Drunk O'Clock somewhere in the world.
— Open Blogger Oooh, so close. Maybe with one or two more days to work the deputies, he could have swung two or 350 more of them in his favor.
BREAKING: By a 534-94 margin, deputies vote no confidence in Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel - WPLG— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) April 26, 2018
Of course, the Broward county deputies might have reason to want to pin the maximum amount of blame on Scott Israel -- a new report says the Broward deputies cowered behind cars and trees while the Parkland shooter was killing people inside the school.
The deputies who were among the first to arrive to the scene of the Florida school massacre were found taking cover behind their cars and a nearby tree and had no idea where the gunman was, according to an official report released Tuesday.
The report from Coral Springs Officer Bryan Wilkins details how he arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School within minutes of the active shooter alert -- only to find Broward County Sheriff's Officers hadn't entered the school, but were instead taking cover.
"I saw approximately four Broward County Sheriff's Office vehicles parked in the west bound lane with their personnel taking up exterior positions behind their vehicles," Wilkins wrote. "I drove up just west of the campus building 1200, exited my vehicle, grabbed my AR-15 rifle and donned on my tactical/medical gear. As I was advancing on foot through the chain-link fence, I was advised by an unknown BSO Deputy taking cover behind a tree, 'he is on the third floor.'"
I understand taking cover and even "cowering" upon first arrival at the scene -- when you don't know what's going on, it makes sense to get to a place of safety where you can stop, look, and listen, and figure out where the threat is.
However, according to the hero of this saga, when he rolled up, the Broward deputies told him where the shooter was, and continued cowering even as he, alone, marched in to confront the danger.
If they knew where the shooter was, why did they not already enter the school?
Were they waiting for the cavalry? Do they expect other cops to come in and do their jobs for them?
Apparently that's what they did in fact do -- they let a cop from another jurisdiction armor up and go into the school with his weapon while they continued taking a "wait and see" attitude about the whole mass shooting bother.
Well -- the Coral Springs cop Wilkins was joined by one Coral Springs detective and one Broward deputy.
I guess the rest were remaining outside to tell other cops coming to save their bacon where to go to confront the shooter so that they could keep protecting the cars and trees.
And What Sanctimony Tells Me About the Sanctimonious
— Open Blogger Pardon Martha Stewart to troll Comey -- and also, because it's the right thing to do.
Here's MKH's top two reasons for a pardon (though she lists more):
1. The Whole Thing Was Nonsense
If you ask an average American why Stewart went to jail, theyd probably tell you "insider trading." In fact, that is not what brought her down. She was never charged with insider trading over the 2001 sale of ImClone stock that started the whole affair. She was charged with conspiring to lie about the crime with which she was never charged.
"Stewart has always asserted that she sold the stock because it fell below a 'predetermined price [$60] at which she planned to sell,'" Slate reported. "The U.S. attorney, in contrast, alleges that Stewart sold because she heard that Sam Waksal, ImClones CEO, was trying to sell his own stock in the company. The alleged crimes, in any event, took place after the sale."
That move, which she said she did on the advice of her broker, prevented a loss of about $45,000. The case for insider trading was weak, so the government went after her on more novel charges.
One was so novel it got tossed out by the judge. That particular legal theory was that because Stewart publicly professed her innocence of insider trading, she thereby propped up the value of her own company, with which her personal reputation was inextricably linked. That amounted to "securities fraud."
Theres a reason "don't make a federal case out of it" is a phrase for blowing something out of proportion, and this case is a perfect example. It shouldn't have been a federal case, and Stewart shouldn't have lost her freedom, her executive position, and a bunch of earning potential over it.
Taking the US Attorney's allegation as true (momentarily), it appears Martha Stewart was accused of insider trading, which was not true (the circumstances can't support that charge), and contrived a lie to give her an alibi for a crime she didn't commit.
Technically, a crime. Maybe.
But really -- get the fuck out of here with this weak bullshit. Her "crime" was caused by your flawed accusation. If the state is falsely charging someone with a crime that they will later confess is not a crime and can't be prosecuted, and someone, in a panic move, tells a lie (which turns out to be immaterial, as there was no crime to conceal), as far as I'm concerned, that lie is the government's fault.
Also, if she had lied about, say, an unrelated sexual encounter, this couldn't have been considered a criminal false statement because it's entirely immaterial.
Given that there was no crime she was covering up with her lie, it too was just as immaterial as, say, some sweaty dalliance with the Sultan of Brunei.
This demonstrates, of course, that a prosecutor with an eye for politics and press coverage will stop at very little to secure a conviction against someone they believe to be disliked by the public.
Something to keep in mind. Especially given James Comey's leak with the admitted intent to get a special counsel as vengeance for his firing.
2. To Take A Swipe At Comey
Hey, we know what makes the guy tick. Guess who decided to go after Stewart on these charges when he was a federal prosecutor? James Comey. A pardon to Stewart would be a blow to Comey that is perfectly within Trump's power and a much less controversial move than firing him was.
Anyone who can't admit he made a mental error or was ignorant of a fact is a moron. Anyone who can't admit he is sometimes morally flawed and motivated by base and petty impulses like ego and vengeance is a monster.
Smart people can admit mistakes because acknowledging mistakes is what made them smart in the first place. You can't become smart if you believe that every first-look gut intuition you have is unerringly correct -- that shows no later reflection, no later attempt to research the question, no later attempt to self-correct.
It's only attempts at self-correction that lead to education and becoming smarter. What gets measured gets improved, as they old management saying goes -- and if you're never keeping honest track of your mental golf scores, how will you ever reduce your strokes?
Also, smart people know they're decently intelligent and therefore admitting error is no kind of catastrophic ego event for them. They have the resilience, in the form of justified confidence about their mental abilities, to absorb the pain of admitting an error and then just shrug it off.
An idiot, on the other hand, cannot admit he is wrong, ever, for his ego is both large and fragile. A single crack in his bubble of self-protection could burst the whole thing.
The exact same rule applies to morality. If I see someone admitting they sometimes act selfishly (especially unprompted, though prompted confessions count too), I don't think "Oh that's a selfish person." I think, That's a fairly moral person who is in fact probably overestimating her own selfishness and probably is more selfless than she's currently saying."
How can anyone ever become more moral if they think everything they do was only in service of God and Country? Again, if you're not keeping honest track of your moral record, accurately keeping track of your failings as well as your moral victories, how can you ever actually improve your moral game?
Believing that everything you do is morally pristine is a steep ramp to degeneracy.
As with the confession of an error usually leading me to judge someone as intelligent, not unintelligent (dummies don't admit error), the confession of a moral failing suggests to me that that person is pretty moral and is confessing error precisely because she has high moral standards for herself and judges herself somewhat harshly when she fails to meet the high bar she's set.
On the other hand: James Comey.
This guy is filthy with self-righteousness. He sweats gallons of self-regard. He's moist and sticky with ego.
The fact that he cannot even entertain the possibility that he sometimes acts in his own narrow self-interest, and that not everything he does is animated by patriotism, duty, and Professional Excellence, suggests to me that an awful lot of things he does are done with mercenary, self-interested, and corrupt motives.
The less willing someone is to admit an intellectual defect, the more I assume that person is riddled with intellectual defects and can't even admit to one error for fear of then having to admit ten thousand.
And the more outraged a sanctimonious prick is at the suggestion that he is not, in fact, the moral twin of Lord Jesus Christ, the more I assume that he is a moral reprobate who can't even look at himself clearly in the mirror for fear of what he might wind up seeing.
And apply this to any of the most self-righteous, sanctimonious pricks you see online. The more they insist they are morally spotless, the more I know they're morally filthy.
Such people are ridiculous, and should be ridiculed, and made to gnash their teeth as others laugh at them.
Pardon Martha Stewart, just on the outside chance that it might afford James Comey one more chance at introspection and honest self-examination.
He'll avoid that at all costs, of course-- but it would be righteous of us (and not self-serving and self-pleasing at all! Nope! Not in the least!) to afford him that chance at moral scorekeeping.
— Open Blogger A commenter asked that.
I think he'll have all kinds of topics to cover besides the revelation that CNN employee James Clapper leaked a highly classified briefing to CNN, and then CNN published a #FakeNews story dutifully relaying Clapper's dishonest denial of having done so:
I've noted that before, too: CNN knew damn well that Clapper was leaking to them, yet CNN ran Clapper's false claim he wasn't leaking to anyone and ran it as if the fact were true -- or, at least, they did not contradict it.
See this from Sean Davis, too -- a long time ago he reported that Feinstein's former staffer was now running the post-election Fusion/Steele effort.
It's now being reported in the Congressional Russia report that Feinstein's former staffer hired Fusion and Steele -- and raised fifty million to do so.
CONFIRMED: Former Feinstein Staffer Raised $50 Million, Hired Fusion GPS And Christopher Steele After 2016 Election
A declassified congressional report confirms that Daniel Jones, a former intelligence committee staffer for Sen. Dianne Feinstein, hired Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele to push the Russian collusion narrative against Donald Trump.
APRIL 27, 2018 By Sean Davis
A declassified congressional report confirms prior reporting by The Federalist that Daniel Jones, a former staffer for Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), hired Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele after the 2016 election to push the anti-Trump Russian collusion narrative.
According to the report, Jones, who runs an investigative outfit called the Penn Quarter Group (PQG), told the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in March of 2017 that he had retained the services of Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele to "continue exposing Russian interference" in the 2016 election. Steele is the former British spy who authored the infamous unverified dossier of allegations against President Donald Trump.
1, The Federalist is a frequent reporter on Fusion GPS -- and not in a positive way.
2, According to William Brower, who pushed for the Magitsky Act after a Russian friend of his was murdered in prison after complaining of actors connected to the Russian government stealing money, Fusion has reporters apparently loyal to them that push Fusion narratives and attack Fusion critics. (BTW, Fusion is of course the most prominent American actor pushing for the repeal of the Maginsky Act -- in other words, Fusion works for the Russian government to spread Russian propaganda and advocate against sanctions against Russian oligarchs to protect the Russian government against penalties for crimes and murders.)
3, There is now a campaign being pushed on Twitter: #WhoFundsTheFederalst. The campaign seems designed to suggest that the Federalist, like Fusion itself, is a paid propaganda operation for Russia.
Who the fuck cares who funds the Federalist? Seems to me the only way you could get to me to care who funds the Federalist is if you paid me cash money to care who funds the Federalist.
Now I like the Federalist a lot, but they're not exactly a household name.
Where is all this interest in slandering The Federalist coming from? Who is this personally concerned about the Federalist?
Who funds #WhoFundsTheFederalist?
— Open Blogger Apparently the firings were done according to two criteria: Cost of contract and support for Trump.
People whose contracts were expensive were almost all fired. People whose contracts were less expensive were either kept or fired depending on how pro- or anti-Trump they were.
But I don't think it's actually about partisanship or Trump support per se. It's about actual readers and revenue. If the blog were attracting more readers, that would have proved there was a constituency for its position in the conservative movement, and I imagine Salem would have kept them going as-is.
Some time ago I faced the choice of doing an anti-Trump-but-pro-conservative blog, or getting on board with Trump. (The latter turned out to be easier than I thought, as the idea of President Hillary Clinton got my partisan dander up.)
But when I was contemplating the idea of a blog that was allegedly pro-conservative while simultaneously being against the key player (flaws and all) of the actual on-the-ground real-world conservative movement, I realized: This makes no sense.
What's the audience for that? How many readers would that attract? How narrow a window would I have to shoot for, simultaneously opposing the president and the putative leader of the conservative movement while also allegedly being a bright red TruCon gung-ho for conservative political victories?
Wouldn't any conservative political victory redound to Trump's benefit? And wouldn't my opposition to Trump mean that I would not welcome such victories?
How can you have, say, a New York Giants blog where you claim to want the Giants to win each game but want the quarterback Eli Manning to lose every game, because you think he's "unfit to lead the Giants" and you want them to get a better quarterback to do better in later seasons?
It's fine to want the quarterback replaced, and it's understandable that someone might say "I'll take a losing season to set up winning seasons later."
But you can't also be rooting for the Giants at the same time you're rooting against them.
There's nothing wrong, really, with rooting against them so they realize their error in keeping Eli at the helm. People do this. I did this any time their season was so crappy they wouldn't make the playoffs-- might as well then lose ALL THE GAMES.
But the proprietor of such a Pro-Giants-But-Anti-Eli blog must understand, and must admit, that until Eli has departed, the blog would actually be an anti-Giants blog, until they have a quarterback the blog deems fit to lead.
Yes, you can say you're pro-Giants -- but your actual tangible day-to-day hoped-for outcome is losses as far as the eye can see.
Sure, you can say "But on a deeper, more important level, I really want them to win."
Yeah, but in some hypothetical future. As a current-day present-time matter, you want them to lose.
What exactly is the market for a New York Giants football blog dedicated to promoting at least four years of Giants losses until Eli's contract runs out in 2020?
How many readers would such a blog have?
Probably not a lot.
Leftists often say they really support the America that can be in the future, while being pretty opposed to the actual America that exists in the here and now.
And a lot of people disagree with liberals that that constitutes "supporting America." A lot of people think that supporting America involves, as a necessity, supporting America.
A long time ago I watched an interesting Twitter back-and-forth between John Sexton and Ben Domenech on an abortion-law strategy.
Sexton pointed out that Europe (most countries, anyway) permits abortion, but only until the eighteenth or twentieth week. He proposed that as a solution to the American debate (at least -- as a temporary, interim solution until there was more support for a true ban).
Ben Domenech made the point that there was no constituency for such a (pardon) split the baby down the middle approach.
There was a constituency for making abortion illegal, and there was a constituency for keeping abortion legal until the moment of crowning (and sometimes a few minutes after that), but there was no actual constituency that would support Sexton's policy proposal.
Sexton's policy proposal might look good on paper -- again, even if it's just a waypoint towards a true pro-life position -- but the practical reality was that there was no actual constituency for it. No audience for it. No political market for it.
The discussion was interesting because both men were, it seemed to me, right. Sexton was right that, at least as far as a policy, his 20-week-limit compromise had been proven workable and even popular in other countries, and would appease most pro-choicers (who are not nearly as absolutist as NARAL and Planned Parenthood) while delivering a modest waypoint victory to pro-lifers.
But Domenech is/was almost certainly right that as good as that may look on paper, and as interesting as that might make for an Atlantic think-piece (back when The Atlantic permitted heterodox opinions on abortion), there was just no political support for it, either currently or in the imaginable mid-term future.
I'm not saying anyone on the NeverTrump side of things is to blame, or should have predicted this (though, you know, some did predict it), but sometimes you can come up with a plan that makes sense to you and even makes sense on paper but just cannot result in any kind of viable movement or business model.
Add into this the fact that most blog commentary involves very attitudinal snark and denigration of one's political opponents. It doesn't have to involve that, but the practical reality is: It almost always involves that.
So then you've got a bunch of alleged TruCons who are being very snarky, denigrating, condescending, and antagonistic to those conservatives holding to the idea that one should support, you know, day-to-day conservative maneuverings and hope for victories.
And now what's the audience down to? You can either write in such a careful and emotionless way that you aren't read as snarking at your intraparty rivals -- but that would probably result in a dry and overly-milquetoast blog, with few readers.
Or you can write the blog in the typical (lazy) way of just busting chops and slinging #HotTake zingers at your intraparty rivals -- thus driving them away. (That happened here at this blog, too, as long time readers, on the NeverTrump side of things, felt insulted and denigrated by my own cheap zingers. I wish I could get some of them back -- I miss a lot of them.)
Again, in that case too: Audience dwindles. And given that Trump has the support of something like 85% of the GOP, there's not a lot of audience a pro-conservative-but-anti-Trump blog can afford to alienate.
The old expression for this "a feathered fish" -- a feathered fish can't fly, and the feathers weight it down so that it also can't swim. It's a blend of two inconsistent things that results in a non-viable hybrid for which there is little audience.
Eh. I think (and long thought) this business model was non-viable but I don't wish any ill on the fired people and I hope they can find jobs somewhere.
But I still think that, on strictly practical terms, they really have to decide if they're birds or fish if they want to get anywhere.
Note: This is why I keep predicting that various NeverTrumpers will undergo political reassignment surgery to become Atlantic writers. Or will try to. I think some of them understand that in politics, you do need to be mostly one thing or the other, and some are opting to transition to becoming soft Democrats or conservative Democrats. Or moderates.
Anything that will make them potential hires by non-conservative outlets.
I think a lot of them have begun to understand this dilemma, and are taking some steps towards a "soft reboot" of their political beliefs to be more palatable to liberals. The "Libertarian" half-step will appeal to many.
I see some of the more prominent NeverTrumpers sounding CNN-friendly notes, as one example of this.
Another possibility for someone caught in this trap -- and I mention this because I thought about it a lot, myself -- is transitioning to being a writer who writes mostly about some other specialty and only occasionally about politics. Personally, the idea of this appealed to me, but it failed in practical reality because I don't know much about anything. But other writers have areas besides politics they do know well or are at least interested in, and could remake themselves into writers about those things who also have some political opinions too.
— Open Blogger Let me add in my own "finding:" Clapper was going to continue lying about this until the specificity of the question -- Did you leak to Jake Tapper, specifically? -- suggested to him that Congress knew and had him in a perjury trap if he continued to lie.
So at that point, he said "Oh right, now that you mention it..."
Are we to believe he'd previously forgotten?
Buried within a newly declassified congressional report on Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. elections is a shocking revelation: former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper not only leaked information about the infamous Steele dossier and high-level government briefings about it to CNN, he also may have lied to Congress about the matter.
In one of the findings within the 253-page report, the House intelligence committee wrote that Clapper leaked details of a dossier briefing given to then-President-elect Donald Trump to CNNs Jake Tapper, lied to Congress about the leak, and was rewarded with a CNN contract a few months later.
"Clapper flatly denied 'discussing[ing] the dossier [compiled by Steele] or any other intelligence related to Russia hacking of the 2016 election with journalists,'" the committee found.
When asked directly whether he had ever discussed the dossier with any journalists, Clapper replied that he had not, according to a transcript of the proceedings:
MR. ROONEY: Did you discuss the dossier or any other intelligence related to Russia hacking of the 2016 election with journalists?
MR. CLAPPER: No.
The former DNI later changed his story after he was confronted specifically about his communications with Jake Tapper of CNN.
"Clapper subsequently acknowledged discussing the 'dossier with CNN journalist Jake Tapper,' and admitted that he might have spoken with other journalists about the same topic," the report continued. Clappers discussion with Tapper took place in early January 2017, around the time IC leaders briefed President Obama and President-elect Trump, on 'the Christopher Steele information,' a two-page summary of which was enclosed in the highly-classified version of the ICA," or intelligence community assessment.
Clapper was then hired as a CNN national security commentator.
Remember, CNN was looking for a "news hook" -- this is straight from Comey's mouth -- to report on the dossier. Did Tapper mention that to Clapper? Did Clapper then contrive this whole briefing, which he could leak to his future employer, as the exact "news hook" CNN was looking for?
I'm 99% certain that's exactly what happened. And I've been saying so for more than a year.
My only question is whether Brennan and Comey also understood the purpose of this briefing was not to inform the president, but to deliver CNN the news hook it needed to report the fake dossier paid for by Clinton.
Were they co-conspirators, or just Clapper's dupes?
— Open Blogger
"So it looks like a couple of members of the progressive set, Joy Anne Reid and Kanye West, have been set upon by the left-wing howling mob for saying inconvenient things that make sense. Reid decided to double down on stupid, blaming shadowy ne'er-do-wells for inserting fake posts in archives of her old blog. She obviously wrote what she wrote, yet she's denying that she wrote it. This strikes me as being psychologically unhealthy. West, on the other hand, is standing up to the mob and owning what he said. Even if the mob takes him down, dragon energy or no, I think this is the healthier choice, albeit a harder one. Reid could've claimed she has since changed her mind since she wrote those blog posts. That would've been reasonable. But now she's exhibiting Eichenwald levels of self-delusion and if she continues along that path, she'll eventually be sitting alone in a run-down house with 53 cats."
Well, That Didn't Take Long:
— Open Blogger
— Open Blogger
Good morning kids. The weekend is here and there's a boatload of things to cover so let's get down to it. Before we do, something just struck me in that many of these links are interrelated and interconnected, primarily in a (for lack of a better word at this hour) philosophical sense. In that regard, I'm now breaking out the Firs Amendment into its own category aside and apart from the Culture Wars since the efforts on many fronts to silence voices of opposition has ramped up to eleventy-leven. You'll probably see what I'm getting at as you scan the links, but for the sake of being an annoying oberchochem (Yiddish for "know-it-all"), I'll point it out as I get to the examples.
First up, and to me this is kind of a big effin' deal, Kim Jong-Un, whom we affectionately refer to around here as Whoa, Fat! made history by actually crossing over the 38th Parallel into South Korea to meet with that country's president Moon Jae-in. And just yesterday, photos were released showing our now official new Secretary of State Mike Pompeo meeting with Kim. Now, as incredible and perhaps unimaginable as this all seemed even up until a few short months ago, history dictates we should be very wary of what the North is up to. And as I linked to, a number of NorK defectors are also extremely wary of this move. But the optics are what they are. And they're pretty incredible. If, and this is a very big if, Kim is sincere about rapprochement, there is only one reason and one man that made it happen (hint: it's not Madeleine Albright).
And here's the first of my parallels; what we are witnessing with l'affaire Kanye West. You can poo-poo it all you want but for someone of his fame and status amongst the Afro-American and youth community, stepping of the Democrat-Left plantation and seemingly thinking for himself is also a big 'effin deal. Would this have happened if, say, Ted Cruz or G-d forbid the big bad Bollard was President? Who can say? But it did happen with Trump as president, and more importantly, with what his policies are doing for American blacks in contrast to what Leftist-Dem policy has done since at least 1965.
Moving right along to the Mueller witch hunt. In the stupid/risible section, lanky lying pillock James Comey has hit the interview circuit and the more he opens his cake-hole, the more he embarrasses himself. Does he really think that he can claim the GOP authored the Steele Dossier just because the Washington Free Beacon hired Fusion GPS to do opposition research early on in the 2016 campaign? They released them way before Trump was even the nominee and they were not retained to fabricate evidence to be used to snooker (wittingly or unwittingly) a FISA court out of an illegal wiretap to get at Trump once he got the nomination. Keep talking, jerk-o. And that goes for the DNC, since their laughable lawsuit against the Trump campaign and Russia(!) will lead to a discovery process - pause to savor the ironic double-meaning of that word - that will expose some very interesting miscreants and misdeeds on their side. More crucially, Snoozy McSnooerson's DoJ is finally coughing up Strzok and Pages text messaging so we shall see what other things beside mushy Barbara Cartland-esque love notes and virtual bodily fluids were exchanged. Stay tuned. Oh, and if you want a real rage-Strzok, let's here it for Chuck Grassley and his fellow stooges on the Senate Buffoonery Committee who, despite the absolute mountain of evidence that this entire thing is sham of a mockery of a kangaroo court of two mockeries of an injustice, just passed a completely unconstitutional bill essentially stripping the President of his legal authority to fire Mueller. Thank goodness the Ethics Committee at least came down hard on Bob Melendez (/sarc). Death to the GOP. That is all.
On to the battle for free speech where Lynette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson, aka Diamond and Silk, gave as good as they got in front of a House committee investigating their claims about social(ist) media's censorship/political persecution of them over their support for PDT. What sickened me was to have imbecilic scum like Sheila Jackass-Lee and Hakeem Jefferies snare them in a "gotcha" moment over the fact that they denied being paid a few shekels by the Trump Campaign back in 2016. And even if they were, so f**king what? They were proudly and openly supporting the campaign. Everyone with half a braincell knew it from watching their videos for more than 10 seconds at a stretch. You want to know what's disgusting? Aside from Jerrold Nadler's mere presence, which suffice it to say resembles a coagulated mass of rotting lipids oozing out of a rumpled Mens Wearhouse discount rack suit, his utter hypocrisy in loudly declaring that the claims of social media censoring conservatives is a hoax while taking a payoff from Google to the tune of over $20,000, is just beyond belief. Finally, California wants to ban books written by ex-gays. I almost put this one in the Islam section as it kind of fits on a couple of levels. Sheesh.
In politics, as my BP settles down from Grassley, it seems that there is a serious internecine war between the left hand and far left hand of the Democrats. With Nancy Palsi being called a liar by a Texas Democrat and demands that Steny Hoyer step down for attempting to rig the Colorado primary, I can't see a Blue Wave happening come November. But I'm sure the GOP-wing of the Democrats will come to their rescue. *puke*
Interesting links in the Islam section, most notably a new play in the Czech Republic is all the rage; it depicts Jesus as a rapist of Muslim women. Weird because I thought the Left has confirmed Jesus to be gay? Well, at least they didn't make him an evil "Joo." Wait, that ain't right.
Speaking of things flying off of roofs, that champion of gay rights Cory Booker demonstrated his boner-fides by of course voting against Mike Pompeo for his supposed views on homosexuality, and then really burnished his rainbow flag waving credentials by voting against PDT's openly gay nominee for ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell. See Nadler, Jerrold for slimy hypocrites.
From hither and yon, parents are rebelling against the mass child abuse being forced on their kids via sex ed films that are two steps removed from John C. Holmes' and Seka's Swedish Erotica, in the wake of the Bill Cosby verdict the phony marble-mouthed propagandist Tom Brokaw is the latest to be outed as sharing Matt Lauer's locksmith and Daniel Greenfield has a good essay about Democrat - you guessed it - hypocrisy with the #MeToo movement (see Ace's thread on this from last night too)
Lastly, for Alfie Evans' doctor, there isn't a Hell hot enough. Bastard.
Anyway, links from around the world, across the nation and up your street. Have a better one and remain blessed.
- Whoa, Fat! Makes History; Crosses 38th Parallel to Meet South Korean Prexy
- NorK Defectors Watch Whoa, Fat's! Visit to South Korea with Dread
MUELLER WITCH HUNT
- DoJ Gives Congress Missing Strzok-Page Text Messages
- Lawless GOP-Led Judiciary Committee Passes Blatantly Unconstitutional Bill to Protect Mueller, Despite Objections of Rank and File
- Comey-Dumpster Claims GOP Funded the Steele Dossier
- Comey-Dumpster Tries to Plug "Leak" Talk (promote or stop?)
- Sean Hannity Owns $90 Million in Real Estate. So What?!
- With PDT "Conspiracy" Lawsuit, Dems Sicced the Equivalent of a Special Counsel on Themselves
- Former Hillary Staffer Rips "Incredibly Arrogant" Libs for Snubbing Trump Voters
- The Clintons and "The Jews"
- US Government Hiding Report on Number of Palestinian Refugees
- MS-13 Thugs Game Immigration System by Lying About Being Underage (Babyface Finster Hardest Hit)
SECOND AMENDMENT, GUN CONTROL
- Browbeat County Sheriff's Vote "No Confidence" on Broward Coward Sheriff Israel
- "Red Sweater Guy" Ken Bone Claims Son Suspended from School Over Gun Range Photo
- "Nads"Nadler, Who Claimed Social Media Censorship a Hoax Took Over $20,000 from Google
- Yet Diamond & Silk Will Be Destroyed for Allegedly Lying to Congress About Being Paid by Trump Campaign
- Berkeley Anti-Conservative Discrimination Suit Survives Legal Challenge
- Rush: The Leftist Ministry of Truth Moves Swiftly to Destroy Kanye West
- Leaving the Democrat Plantation
- California Wants to Ban Books Written by Ex-Gays
POLITICS, 2018 MIDTERMS
- Hard Left Dems Call for Steny Hoyer's Resignation After Secret Recording Emerges
- Soros Front Group Move-On Calls on Dem Leadership to Formally Renounce Meddling in Primaries
- More Blue-on-Blue Schadenboner: House Dem Says "Pelosi Lied" About Border Wall Funding in Omnibus
- Bob Menendez Found Guilty By Ethics Committee; Graft to be Capped at $9,000 Per Bribe and Putas Must be 17
FOREIGN POLICY, INTERNATIONAL
- Second Look at Affirmative Action? Chi-Coms Using Students as Spies
- Israel Defangs Hamas
ISLAM, TERRORISM, SHARIA, DHIMMITUDE
- Islamists Gather for Annual "Pearls (necklaces) of the Quran" Conference in Virginia (the state, not 72)
- Politics as a Weapon in the Cause of Islam
- The Tired Lies of Taqqiya
- Czech Your Privilege: New Play Depicting Jesus Raping Muslim Women All the Rage in Brno
THE ECONOMY, STUPID
- The Liberals' Fiscal Feint: How to Defend Obama's Stagnation in the Face of PDT's Tax Cuts and Economic Growth
- Self-Proclaimed Champion of Gay Rights Cory Booker Votes Against Gay PDT Nominee
- Congress is Aiming Toward Another Omnibus Spending Disaster; Here's How to Prevent That
- Giving Common Sense a Chance in California
- Alfie Evans' Doctor: Alfie Must Die Because His Parents Have a Bad Attitude
- Parents Outraged by Sex-Ed Video About Blowjobs, Sex Toys and G-Spots (who opened for Madonna at the Garden in '87)
- No, Teachers Are Not Underpaid (but quite a few are oversexed)
RED-GREENS, CLIMATE CHANGE, ETC.
- The Scott Pruitt Show Trial
- Carbon Tax: A Bad Idea Whose Time Should Never Come
CULTURE WARS, HITHER and YON
- Greatest De-Generation? Broke-Jaw Brokaw Allegedly Sexually Harassed Women in the 1990s
- Greenfield: How the Dems Suppressed the #MeToo Movement in Their Own Party
- Why the Joy Reid Blog Scandal Matters
- How Millenial Socialists Endanger America
IN THE LEAD
April 26, 2018
— Open Blogger Hi kids! Time to reach into Weirddave's Satchel O' Stuff™ and see what's on the docket for tonight's ONT! I wonder what Chad's up to?
In other news, tonight is the first day of the NFL draft. Does anyone care? more...
— Open Blogger Germany, huh? Wasn't that an "alt-right" country at one time?
— Open Blogger Either get back on the plantation or be demonetized.
"The point I'm trying to make is you all have been bashing Facebook and you've been making a ton of money, isn't that correct?" Johnson pressed.
"We didn't bash Facebook," Hardaway said. "We brought the light on how Facebook has been censoring conservative voices like ours... They won't let us monetize on Facebook. They stopped it for six months, 29 days. They limited our page."
"And Youtube did also by demonetizing 95 percent of our videos for no reason at all," Richardson chimed in, "deeming it as hate speech."
Johnson continued in his attempts to discuss the sisters profits, saying "you still sell merchandise."
"Even if we sell merchandise that don't have anything to do with Facebook," Hardaway replied. "Facebook censored our free speech, and shame on the ones that don't even see that we have been censored."
Hardaway then highlighted what she claimed was a double standard in the way Facebook treats conservatives like them.
"When the Black Lives Matter people come in, everyone is up in arms," she told Johnson. "Let me just say this here, if the shoe was on the other foot and Mark Zuckerberg was a conservative, and we were liberals, oh all fences and all chains would have broke loose. You know it and I know it. What I find appalling is that these Democrats they don't want to take up for our voice because we support the president."
"Democrats would be in the streets," Richardson agreed. "Democrats would be in the streets right now marching and calling him all types of racist."
Sure we're censoring your right to make money off free speech, but we've still permitted you to make a living by fishing, so what's your problem?
Then Johnson got into this bizarre territory: That Congress was giving Diamond & Silk a platform at the hearing, and with that they could increase their profile and make money, so, in a way, wasn't FaceBook just helping them make money by censoring them?
I think that was his point. The man is a retard. You tell me what this was intended to mean:
Johnson concluded his questioning with a comment that the committee is "giving you a tremendous platform with this hearing to make a ton of money when it's over."
"That's right, and I hope everybody goes on Facebook and follows us," Hardaway replied. "Because thats what its supposed to be about. Its supposed to be about obtaining the American dream. We are African-American women. If illegal aliens can come over here and build businesses, why cant we? We were born on this soil. You dont have a right to silence my voice."
What I hear this asshole saying is that only Democrats are allowed to make money by speaking their political views. I don't see anyone in the Democrat media orbit missing any meals.
But it's somehow sneaky or cheating that these two women are doing so.
He'd have a different opinion if they were on the plantation, naturally.
Video at the link. It's worth the watch.
— Open Blogger That characterization from Joe DiGenova.
Comey claimed falsely that the Steele Dossier was initially funded "by Republicans." When it was pointed out the Free Beacon said they had funded Fusion GPS but had not paid for the Steele Dossier, he went into his Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer act and claimed he only knew what he saw in the media.
Also echoing Obama, he claimed he did not know that the DNC and Hillary Clinton had funded the Steele Dossier. He claimed he'd only heard that in the media, but did not know it for a fact. Bizarrely, he did not seem to think it was necessary to find out who the actual parties were behind the dossier. He claimed that it was enough for him to know that political opponents of Trump had funded it.
He did not tell Trump about who funded it. Of course, he dismisses this as irrelevant.
He claimed that Cheryl Mills really was Hillary Clinton's lawyer. He also says Mills had been "scrubbed" as a target in the email investigation so I guess whoever Hillary wants in the room with her is fine, so long as Comey's dream team had "scrubbed" her.
He claimed, falsely, that the Steele Dossier was only a minor part of the FISA application and that there was much, much more information included in it. This is false, as Congressional disclosures have shown.
Why did he claim this? Is he lying or just spectacularly uninformed? Is he being okey-doked by more plugged-in Obama sleeper agents?
After first denying meeting with Clapper and Brennan together -- I sense that he sensed that someone had a report ready to run on this -- he then admitted they had just had dinner together. With their spouses, he added. He denied using that as an opportunity to talk shop about Trump.
He claims he didn't leak the dossier briefing to CNN and doesn't know who did. He got shifty here, claiming that he thought Bret Baier was asking who had leaked the "non-classified public document" (the Steele Dossier) to the media. He pretended to think Baier was asking about that, instead of asking about who had leaked the existence of the briefing. (Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer again.) When asked if he had bothered to investigate who had leaked the fact of the dossier briefing, he said he hadn't, and that it didn't matter. He then pretended that this was just about a "nonclassified public document" rather than a very classifed briefing of the president.
He claimed, farcically, that Trump was briefed on the dossier to the exact extent that Obama was, that Obama had no informational advantage here. Brett Baier, to his discredit, did not bring up the Susan Rice "by the book" memo about Obama's order to keep as much of the Russia investigation from Trump. As Brett Baier didn't ask about this, Comey couldn't be asked how he could square his claim that Trump was just as well-briefed as Obama when Obama had his highest-ranking people in a special meeting telling them to keep as much from Trump as possible.
Catherine Herridge points out that Comey admitted to passing his stolen memos to three people -- his "friend" Richman, his godson-turned-lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald, and a third lawyer who he either didn't name or whose name I just forget.
Herridge points out that he admitted that two of those memos were later classified by the FBI, and his lawyers had to turn them over to the FBI.
But that doesn't cure the leak of classified information -- when Comey passed those memos to unauthorized persons, he committed a leak of classified information.
— Open Blogger Live feed; in progress.
43 queries taking 2.1125 seconds, 279 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.