What they believe the know that isn’t so

Huma Abedin Laptop Emails and The Non-Investigated Issues Therein by sundance – “The scale of the misconduct and criminal activity is staggering.”

The Strzok-Page Texts and the Origins of the Trump-Russia Investigation by Andrew C. McCarthy – there is a lot revealed and the redactions are speaking, too.

“House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes is pressing for limited disclosure of information from the government’s closely held files. He is right to do so. No government operations can be completely beyond the examination of the people’s representatives in our constitutional republic. Here, the Obama administration took extraordinary measures to withhold information from Congress about its Trump-Russia probe …

But all that aside, it may not be necessary to pry into informant files in order to find answers to the most pressing questions. Those answers may be found in the thousands of Strzok-Page texts. These provide a day-to-day narrative of the goings-on in the Clinton-emails and Trump-Russia investigations by two of the highest, most plugged-in officials in the government.

Strzok and Page are singularly well-informed, central players in the Clinton and Trump investigations. They tell us exactly what is going on and why — or at least they would if the Justice Department had not blacked out key parts of their running conversation.

Let me give you a small window into what we’re dealing with, homing in on what Nunes has been inquiring about, the start of the Trump-Russia counterintelligence investigation.

John Kerry: Reporting for Duty… From Vietnam to Iran by Paul Kengor – “Kerry, this spring 2018, sought to undermine President Trump’s policies, whereas Kennedy, spring 1983, sought to undermine President Reagan’s policies.”

“The Democratic Congress in the 1980s didn’t hesitate to launch criminal proceedings against President Ronald Reagan and his staff (many of them fine men of great integrity) in a militant pursuit for impeachment over “Iran-Contra.” Liberal Democrats did so while turning a blind eye as their leader — House Speaker Jim Wright — buddied up to Sandinista dictator Daniel Ortega in his own negotiations.

the very deal that President Trump was working to cancel just as Kerry was working to save it.

And that’s hardly the only Kerry outrage. No, this is old-hat. I’d like to remind all of Kerry’s affront decades ago. The date was April 22, 1971, 47 years to almost the exact day that Kerry met with the Iranians.

That moment, too, included yet another unsavory role by Ted Kennedy.

As to the actual origins of Kerry’s information, that is likewise a controversy. One source disputes Kerry’s claim with a bracing suggestion — namely, that the origins were not American, or Vietnamese, but Russian.

Pointing to “peace” organizations that the KGB saturated with dubious anti-American propaganda, Pacepa stated: “The quote from Senator Kerry is unmistakable Soviet-style sloganeering from this period. I believe it is very likely a direct quote from one of these organizations’ propaganda sheets.”

The communist Vietnamese never forgot John Kerry’s testimony in 1971. It had been a great help. And perhaps today, in Iran, Kerry’s words are again being heralded, this time by the world’s worst theocratic terror state. Perhaps if the nuclear deal gets resurrected, Kerry’s mug will find a frame on the wall of a “heroes” exhibit somewhere in Tehran one day: Another testimony to him saving America’s adversaries from the Republican in the White House.

Nunes, Gowdy accuse DOJ of launching anonymous attacks on congressional investigator by Catherine Herridge – “I would have a lot more respect for DOJ or House committee Democrats if they would take out their frustrations on members of Congress, and leave staffers alone,” South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, told Fox News on Monday.

“Attacking staffers, planting false stories, and endangering national security by leaking sensitive information to the press, including information about intelligence sources — this is what the DOJ is doing, and this why trust in the DOJ is rapidly eroding in Congress,” said California Rep. Devin Nunes, the GOP chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

In response to the GOP committee chairmen, Justice Department spokesperson Sarah Isgur Flores said, “As Deputy Attorney General [Rod] Rosenstein has said repeatedly, we don’t put a lot of stock in anonymous sources over here and we are committed to continuing to work with Chairmen Gowdy and Nunes to accommodate their requests.”

Ace of Spades wonders Who Ya Gonna Believe, James Comey or Two Lying Transcripts of James Comey’s Congressional Testimony?

“Last week, the House released a transcript of James Comey testifying that the interviewing agents briefed him that they had seen no indications of deception in Michael Flynn’s testimony.” … “Well, if the House transcript wasn’t enough, how about the Senate transcript, too?”

And of course Rod Rosenstein is citing Important National Security Concerns as a reason to withhold such documents from Congress.

Not to protect his friend Comey or anything.

On the McCain controversy by Byron York – “The slanders set off vicious battles on Twitter, with still more insults to McCain. In response, many of the senator’s allies and supporters rushed to his defense.”

“Given that, it is probably fair to say that arguments about McCain, both civil and not, will continue to the very end, and beyond.

Why? Because of the sheer complexity of John McCain. He has lived a big life, with accomplishments few can match. But in the course of that life he has also antagonized some who should be allies.

McCain knew that many press types admired him because of his fondness for sticking it to the GOP

So which to emphasize in what might be McCain’s final days? Here’s a thought: Why not dwell on the good, especially since it was so good? When someone dies, it really is fitting to look at the best that person did. And John McCain lived a great, patriotic life, doing more in service to the U.S. than his critics, or almost anyone else. When he dies, why not remember that?

There seems to be an excess of sensitivity here rationalized by ‘normal’ events of life. A fatal illness does not mean the ugly should be swept under the rug nor does it mean that those whose opinions differ should be impugned and maligned. Then there’s the motivation behind leaking private conversations …

John Oliver explains Venezuela: Things are terrible but don’t blame socialism by John Sexton – “John Oliver devoted most of his show this weekend to talking about the terrible situation in Venezuela, a situation that has been terrible to varying degrees for at least three years now.”

“There’s just one glaring problem with Oliver’s report: He says socialism isn’t the problem. In fact, he opens the whole segment by mocking conservative media coverage of Venezuela. “If you follow conservative media at all, you will see it frequently painted as the inevitable, dire consequences of a socialist government,” he says. He then cuts to a clip of someone on InfoWars doing a fairly dumb woman-on-the-street interview. That’s the kind of cheap cop-out I would expect from John Oliver. It’s about as fair as criticizing John Oliver and then offering readers a clip of some left-wing campus imbecile in glasses. But I’m not going to do that. I’m just going to point out that John Oliver’s take on socialism not being the real problem in Venezuela is complete and utter garbage.

Was this a case of mismanagement? Yes, absolutely. But what John Oliver never really delves into here is why the mismanagement happened and why, once things became unsustainable, the government couldn’t simply make some common sense market reforms to address it. The answer to all of those why questions is “socialism.”

Another similar apologia and rationalization is by Brian Faler about the GOP tax cut not why economy is booming – “Economists are rolling their eyes at candidates’ claims.” This one is trying to support the Left’s assertion that ‘raising taxes’ is good policy.

Put up or shut up on the Trump threatens democracy claims, Part Two by Paul Mirengoff – “In my first post on this subject, I argued that 15 months into the Trump presidency, those who claim he’s a threat to democracy should have to point to actions he’s taken that support this assertion.” This is another response to the ‘standard never-Trump mantras’ tossed out with wild abandon as axiomatic yet in denial of reality.

“I then submitted that Trump’s actions do not support claims that he threatens free speech, flouts the rule of law, assaults minority rights, or colludes with foreign adversaries.

In this post, I’ll argue that Trump’s approach to the Department of Justice is the antithesis of what we would expect from an administration that threatens our democracy or our freedoms.

This gets into the problems Congress is having getting information out of the DOJ and FBI and other ‘deep state’ behavior in the administration. That sort of behavior would not exist if Trump was as alleged by his opponents.

At Instapundit, Gail Heriot gets into the myth propagation by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

“The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ most recent significant offering is entitled Report on Public Education Inequity in an Era of Increasing Concentration of Poverty and Resegregation. Alas, like many such reports, it perpetuates several destructive myths. For example, it suggests that school districts with high concentrations of minority or low-income students get fewer actual dollars per students than the average school district. Nope. While pockets of underfunding exist, low-income and high-minority school districts tend to get somewhat more money than the average school district on a per-pupil basis (though they get less per-pupil than some mostly-small, mega-wealthy school districts). This “fewer actual dollars per pupil” myth needs to be corrected; it gives rise to unnecessary resentments. It’s hard to have an honest and productive discussion about how schools should be funded, when people are being led to believe that things are worse than they are (and that racism is to blame). I am certainly willing to entertain the possibility that schools with high concentrations of low-income students need more money than the average school. Indeed, I’m inclined to believe it. But I’m not willing to start from the notion that more money for schools is the primary thing that’s needed to solve the nation’s educational problems.

My Dissenting Statement to the Report on Public Education Inequity in an Era of Increasing Concentration of Poverty and Resegregation tries to deal with some of the realities of school finance. Among other things, it makes the point that the relationship between funding and student success is pretty tenuous. (E.g. Washington, D.C. schools are both the highest spenders and the lowest performers.)

There’s a lot that people know that isn’t so and their belief systems are near fanatic.

Comments are closed.