Is a drug trip the only explanation?

Amulets, White Noise, and Trump Reality by Clarice Feldman – “The left (I refuse to call regressives “progressives”) is finding it hard to deal with a reality in which the markets are up, unemployment is down, household income is rising, ISIS is being crushed, and Kim Jong-un is being lassoed.”

“Jeffrey Satinover observes: “‘Believing readers of the Times, however, and authors for the Times, they are far more ignorant than the know-nothings for they are chock full of beliefs that more often than not, and mostly on matters of great importance, are flatly false. It’s not nearly so bad to say, ‘I don’t know if the earth is round or flat’ as it is to be arrogantly certain that it’s flat.”

They laughed and said he couldn’t get the nomination. He did. They never believed he would be elected. He was. They said his election would tank the market. It’s risen substantially. They said his blunderbuss style would cause the world to blow up. Obama said the lost jobs would never come back. They have. It’s more likely that the president will bring peace to the Middle East and Asia.

After ISIS and North Korea, I expect that the Iranians are next on the neuter list, and that has to scare the bejeebers out of those who’ve been peddling the Russiagate nonsense, which I think is in large part to hide their own collusion with the ayatollahs.

Stormy Daniels And Ted Kennedy by John Hinderaker – “the story is interesting because it raises questions about what, in our era, constitutes a scandal.”

“Worst case, Trump paid Stormy Daniels. But he didn’t kill her. That distinguishes him from the Liberal Lion of the Senate. If you want a scandal, and a cover-up that succeeded to a remarkable degree, look no further than Chappaquiddick. The Democratic Party conspired to cover up Ted Kennedy’s crime–manslaughter, in a particularly vile form–to preserve his political viability, at the cost of an innocent young woman’s life.

To this day, most people have no idea what the Chappaquiddick scandal was all about. That is how successful the Democrats’ cover-up has been. Most Americans assume that Kennedy was guilty of drunk driving and negligently causing the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. But the truth is much worse.

That is what I call a scandal: not only Ted Kennedy’s manslaughter–frankly, a charitable characterization–but the Democratic Party’s decades-long cover-up.

In Trump-Russia probe, what’s with that meeting in the Seychelles? by Byron York – “A Trump supporter met with a Russian in the Seychelles in January 2017, and something consequential may or may not have happened.” This is the other half of the Left’s scandal management: create diversions via allegation and innuendo that impugn the opposition.

“The story baffled some Republicans who have been following the Trump-Russia affair, for two reasons. One, the core question of the investigation is whether the Trump campaign and Russia colluded to influence the 2016 election. The Seychelles meeting took place on Jan. 11, 2017, more than two months after the election.

The second reason Republicans were baffled is that even if Prince were representing the Trump transition, and even if he were trying to establish a back channel with the Russians — two points Prince vehemently denies — there would be nothing illegal or improper about the incoming Trump administration setting up a channel, back or otherwise, to speak to a foreign country, including Russia.

No New Special Counsel by Andrew C. McCarthy – “Sessions should appoint a Justice Department prosecutor to investigate the investigators” … which it looks like he has. The Mueller Investigation is another example of how the Left handles scandal and McCarthy thinks a new one would be just as scandalous.

“Original Sin: A Prosecutor but No Crime … The investigation has no parameters, and thus no limitations.

Before explaining my disagreement with them, I must first observe that Chairmen Goodlatte and Gowdy, along with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R., Calif.), continue to perform an invaluable service in exposing investigative irregularities and demanding accountability. Where I part company with them is not over whether we need an investigation; it is over whether that investigation should be done by a special counsel.

The patent flaw in the Goodlatte-Gowdy proposal is the same one that plagued Rosenstein’s appointment of Mueller: There is no triggering crime.

there is a big difference between (a) giving a court information that is unverified because it has not been adequately corroborated and (b) knowingly giving a court information that is false. The former is abusive; the latter is felony obstruction of justice.

My point is simply this: It would not be credible to claim that the Trump-Russia investigation was fabricated out of whole cloth. Even stipulating that the top FBI/DOJ hierarchy was biased against Trump, and thus too quick to credit sensational allegations of Trump wrongdoing, there were good-faith reasons for concern about ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian regime.

What McCarthy cites for support is extremely weak tea. The matter is not about “fabricated out of whole cloth” but rather exaggerated beyond recognition. His support for the “FBI/DOJ hierarchy” contradicts his points about ‘evidence of a crime’ necessary for investigation. Second or third level associations are not such evidence. Goodlatte and Gowdy many not have explicitly defined crimes in their letter but the crimes related to their request are known to the point of being major topics of public discussion. So, in both the rationalizing the behavior of the “FBI/DOJ hierarchy” and in dismissing the request for a special counsel, McCarthy is dancing around reality in strange ways himself.

Comments are closed.