Clarifying the coup attempt (still in progress)

The Real Problem with Judging Judge Roy Moore By Thomas Lipscomb – “The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there.” This is a good rundown on the context that puts the ‘scandal’ in its proper perspective about Moore and about the culture in which he lived. There is an understanding to be gained that the Left’s propaganda machine distorted and hid.

Female Trump accusers seek congressional hearing by Paul Mirengoff – “The women are: Rachel Crooks, who accused Trump of kissing her on the lips without consent in 2005; Jessica Leeds, who accused Trump of moving his hand up her skirt decades ago; and Samantha Holvey, a former Miss North Carolina, who accused Trump of entering a dressing room to peek at undressed beauty contestants in 2006.” As with what is (mostly) alleged about Moore, it is much easier to wonder about crude dating and social behavior rather than sexual predation and harassment with these claims. Then there’s the precedent:

“Remember, the articles of impeachment against President Clinton approved by the House cited him with lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice. (An additional article based on his answers to questions from the House Judiciary Committee failed). There were no charges based on sexual misconduct.

That sexual misconduct left on the table included misuse of power over interns and rape that had supporting evidence not present allegations against either Trump or Moore.

Jerusalem move reveals the radical pattern of Trump diplomacy By Andrew Malcolm – “Trump’s bold announcement also sets him apart from recent presidents of both parties, who made numerous similar vows, then diddled their promises into easy inaction and oblivion.”

“And here is what’s so revealing about this Trump move: He’s not burdened by that depressing precedent. For better and worse, he’s an outsider unshackled by a self-defeating link to conventional wisdom, conventional wisdom that confines thinking only to what has been tried. If that hasn’t worked, only more of the same might.

This president may not have an obvious orthodox method to his diplomacy. But he does have a clear and decisive pattern. It’s more rooted in common-sense reality than in diplomatic dreaminess.

Former top spy rethinks: Maybe we shouldn’t have attacked a new president by Byron York – “As the old saying goes: Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you. Trump understandably believes the intelligence agencies are out to get him.”

“Of course, leaders in the intelligence community would deny they are out to get the president. But in a remarkable new interview, one CIA veteran who served in the agency from 1980 to 2013, who briefed presidents on the most sensitive issues of the day, and is still a prominent voice in intelligence matters is at least conceding that he can understand why the president feels the way he does.

“Let’s put ourselves in Donald Trump’s shoes,” Morell said to Glasser. “So what does he see? Right? He sees a former director of CIA and a former director of NSA, Mike Hayden … criticizing him and his policies. Right? And he would rightfully have said, ‘Huh, what’s going on with the intelligence guys?'”

“And then he sees a former acting director and deputy director of CIA criticizing him and endorsing his opponent,” Morell continued. “And then he gets his first intelligence briefing, after becoming the Republican nominee, and within 24 to 48 hours, there are leaks out of that that are critical of him and his then-national security adviser Mike Flynn.”

“And so, this stuff starts to build, right? And he must have said to himself, ‘What is it with these intelligence guys? Are they political?'”

The answer to that was simple: Yes, they were political. But the astonishing part of the Morell interview is his admission that at the time he did not stop to consider what was happening from Trump’s perspective

Morell admits he went after the new president without even considering what that might mean. “I think there was a significant downside to those of us who became political,” he told Glasser. “So, if I could have thought of that, would I have ended up in a different place? I don’t know. But it’s something I didn’t think about.”

Reynolds on this: “That this obviously foreseeable consequence wasn’t foreseen demonstrates that these “intelligence” guys aren’t very good at what they’re supposed to be good at. And it explains why their work product hasn’t been very good with regard to other countries, when they couldn’t even foresee an obvious result in their own.”

One Mueller-Investigation Coincidence Too Many by Victor Davis Hanson – “Special investigations often quickly turn Soviet, in the sense of ‘Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.’ … Something has gone terribly wrong with the Mueller investigation.

“These public worries are not groundless. They are deeply rooted in the nature and liberal composition of the Mueller investigative team — whose left-leaning appointments just months ago had understandably made the liberal media giddy with anticipation from the outset. Wired, for instance, published this headline on June 14: “Robert Mueller Chooses His Investigatory Dream Team.” Vox, on August 22, wrote: “Meet the all-star legal team who may take down Trump.” The Daily Beast, two day later, chimed in: “Inside Robert Mueller’s Army.”

Whose ‘Army,’ Whose ‘Dream Team,’ and Whose ‘All-Stars’?

By now there are simply too many coincidental conflicts of interest and too much improper investigatory behavior to continue to give the Mueller investigation the benefit of doubt. Each is a light straw; together, they now have broken the back of the probe’s reputation.

the special-counsel investigation has developed an eerie resemblance to the spate of sexual-harassment cases, in which the accused sluff off initial charges as irrelevant, unproven, or politically motivated, only to be confronted with more fresh allegations that insidiously point to a pattern of repeated behavior.

Governmental accountability board? More like Wisconsin’s Secret Police by Glenn Harlan Reynolds – “It was a partisan witch hunt masquerading as an inquiry into campaign irregularities. And it might presage the outcome of the Mueller investigation.”

“The “Cheesehead Stasi.” That’s what Twitter humorist IowaHawk called a long-running and politicized investigation organized by Democratic politicians in Wisconsin, targeting supporters of Republican Gov. Scott Walker. The mechanism for this investigation was an allegedly nonpolitical, but in fact entirely partisan,

Now an investigation by Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel on behalf of the overseeing court has spelled out a long list of misdeeds by the investigators, and has called for punishments including contempt-of-court holdings and possible disbarment. And the stuff that it has uncovered is pretty awful.

Wisconsin Democrats took Scott Walker’s victory very hard. They tried to recall him, and failed. And they tried to undermine his term in office through the abuse of legal institutions. Now some of them will face professional discipline, and judicial punishment, as a result.

It’s too early to say, as one account does, that the Wisconsin debacle prefigured the ongoing Robert Mueller investigation into Trump’s campaign, though there are certainly similarities between the attitudes of “The Resistance” in Washington and the Wisconsin establishment’s response to Walker.

That’s the coup effort on two fronts. Ace has another: CNN Special Snowflakes to Donald Trump: Please Stop Bullying Us After We Spend Hour After Hour of #FakeNews Attacks on You!Allahpundit gets into this, too.

“The commentariat spends much of its time nowadays navel-gazing about how the media can rebuild goodwill among Americans who’ve lost faith in it. One suggestion: For starters, for the love of Mike, stop the endless cycle of self-pity and grandiosity. When reporters aren’t busy telling you how heroic their industry is, they’re busy telling you how mean the president is to them, although he’s only mean to them because he’s threatened by their heroic crusade for truth and free speech, which in turn makes his disrespect so much more tragic and hurtful since you would expect the president of all people to stand up for the First Amendment, but at least our heroic media is standing up for it, and on and on we go!

And, another front: David Gross: science will survive Pope Urban, Stalin, Hitler, and Trump by Luboš Motl – “Just a comment about some weird statement by a famous guy at a prestigious event.”

“Needless to say, the hall was crowded with tons of leftist extremists who literally and overtly want the U.S. president to die which is why the applause following Gross’ talk was extraordinary. They love to write mock articles such as the 2013 article by Donald Trump, “When You’re Feeling Low, Just Remember I’ll Be Dead in About 15 or 20 Years.”

If you think about the detailed formulation of Gross’ point, you will realize that it’s even scarier. Science has survived attacks by Pope Urban VIII, Stalin, and Hitler. Gross didn’t talk about the death of these three villains personally. But in the case of Donald Trump, it won’t be Trump’s attacks that science will survive. The word “attack” doesn’t appear on that line. David Gross thought about the death for Trump and his ilk even though the Pope, Stalin, and Hitler escaped any similar treatment. It’s only Trump and his ilk – and I can’t imagine how I could not take such comments personally – whose death is eagerly expected by David Gross and his ilk.

so the punchline of Gross’ talk is that he wants the U.S. president to die soon enough – because it’s needed as a testimony for the viability of science. Can you imagine how creepy it is?

Sorry to say, David, but it is you who is the heir to the fathers of the Aryan Physics, Lysenkoism, and other movements that try to “purify” science according to the ideological criteria.

Justice Sotomayor unintentionally highlights the danger of having too many laws by Ilya Somin – “Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted a dangerous feature of our legal system. We have far more laws than the state and federal governments can effectively enforce” Sotomayor and Somin making common sense? What is going on here?

“The executive therefore exercises enormous discretion about which lawbreakers to go after and which ones to leave alone.

This, in turn, has dire consequences for the rule of law in our society: It makes it very difficult for ordinary citizens to determine what laws apply to them and how to avoid violations, and ensures that whether a given lawbreaker gets prosecuted depends far more on the exercise of police, prosecutorial, and executive discretion than on any objective application of legal rules. Thus, the rule of law is in large part supplanted by the rule of whatever men and women control the levers of power at any given time. As Sotomayor notes, those people have vast discretion in deciding which of the “countless laws” on the books they want to enforce, and when.

Justice Sotomayor’s statement highlights a dangerous reality of our legal system. One that too many of us tend to ignore. So long as there are vastly more laws on the books than the government can realistically hope to enforce, the rule of law will continue to be imperiled.

There are implications of beliefs and opinions and many, on the Left especially, seem rather oblivious about what they think and do.

Comments are closed.