Patterico's Pontifications

5/7/2018

Are the FBI/DoJ Redactions from the House Intelligence Committee Report Legitimate?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:58 am



Andrew C. McCarthy has an article this morning that argues that the FBI had no justification for redacting certain information from the House Intelligence Committee Report on Russia. McCarthy’s piece is titled Outrageous Redactions to the Russia Report and argues that “the redactions had absolutely nothing to do with concerns about the need to protect national security or pending investigations.” The redactions in question deal with Michael Flynn, and here’s how McCarthy summarizes what the redacted passages do:

  • Elaborate on why the FBI did not believe Flynn had lied, including quotations from Comey’s testimony.
  • Reveal that for some period of time during 2016, the FBI conducted a counterintelligence (CI) investigation of Flynn.
  • Note that top Obama Justice Department and FBI officials provided the committee with “conflicting testimony” about why the FBI interviewed Flynn as if he were a criminal suspect.
  • Illustrate that the FBI and Justice Department originally insisted on concealment of facts helpful to Flynn that are already public.

I’ll take issue with his characterization of the first point. The redacted passages reveal that, according to a report compiled by partisans, Jamey Comey testified that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not notice physical signs of deception.

You can access comparisons of some of the key redacted and unredacted passages in these useful tweets from Sean Davis:

Let me blow up the relevant passage to make it easier to read:

Screen Shot 2018-05-07 at 7.23.16 AM

That does not sound like a passage about “why the FBI did not believe Flynn had lied, including quotations from Comey’s testimony.” It sounds like a passage about why the FBI believed that Flynn had said something about his own conversations that they believed to be untrue, and had to reconcile that with the fact that the agents who interviewed Flynn did not detect “physical indications of deception.” (My emphasis.)

Overall, though, the reason for the redactions does not jump out at me.

I’d still want to hear from DOJ and FBI before finally concluding beyond any doubt that there was no need for the redactions. For example, could the fact that there was a counterintelligence investigation of Flynn have been classified? And could that explain any of the redactions? Remember: the mere fact that something is publicly known does not automatically mean that a redaction of a reference to that information is improper. After all, we know that even classified information that is leaked and becomes public is still considered classified.

But arguments like this, if they might arguably justify some of the redactions, don’t seem to justify all of them. For example, McCarthy cites a redacted passage containing information that has already been disclosed in “a document submitted to the court by Special Counsel Mueller when Flynn pled guilty” and notes:

It is a public document. . . . [W]hat conceivable good reason can there have been for the FBI and Justice Department to redact from the report information that was already publicly disclosed? Why black out public information showing that Flynn merely did what any Obama official, or any other U.S. official, would have done — namely, suggest that Russia would only make things worse by escalating the dispute?

As to the propriety of the redactions, I think it looks bad for the FBI, DoJ, and the Trump administration. Put me in the “this sure looks like a problem, but I’m withholding final judgment” camp. (The nice thing about this camp is that it’s not very popular. There are always spots available!)

Two final points.

First: classification is sometimes done for legitimate reasons and sometimes for illegitimate reasons, as I noted in 2006:

Sometimes information is classified by the government because it’s proper to do so.

Sometimes information is classified by the government because it’s embarrassing to the government. If you don’t know this, you should do more reading. Try reading Irreparable Harm by Frank Snepp, for starters.

How do we decide which is which, if we’re not going to be told what the information is?

Which leads to my second point. In the first instance, we put the onus on the president. And indeed, McCarthy puts the ultimate blame for all of this on Donald Trump, noting that the president has the authority and duty to make sure redactions are proper:

It is simply ridiculous for President Trump to continue bloviating about this situation on Twitter and in friendly media interviews, and for congressional Republicans to continue pretending that the problem is Justice Department and FBI leadership — as if Trump were not responsible for his own administration’s actions. The president has not only the authority but the duty to ensure that his subordinates honor lawful disclosure requests from Congress.

. . . .

Republican committees can carp all they like about Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein. The buck stops with the president.

Some consider it impolite to point this out, but the president doesn’t really read. If he did, he might be better positioned to second-guess his administration’s judgments about redactions. But he doesn’t, so he will learn about this when he sees it on teevee or an aide tells him about it.

More to come, I’m sure.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

309 Responses to “Are the FBI/DoJ Redactions from the House Intelligence Committee Report Legitimate?”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. swc, Dysphoria Sam, and narciso all unmoderated.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  3. So, Trump humpers, what’s worse? That Trump may have know the redactions were improper and allowed them anyway, or that Trump probably doesn’t know and doesn’t care?

    Gryph (08c844)

  4. swc, Dysphoria Sam, and narciso all unmoderated unredacted.

    :)

    Dave (445e97)

  5. Re the FBI’s lie-dar: Flynn was the Army’s spy chief. Head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. And he rose to that position through the ranks in military intelligence. I expect he would know how not to give away anything to interrogators through body language.

    As for redacting information that is already public … lawyers face that all the time. Just because “everybody already knows” does not mean that you are free to disclose confidential information.

    nk (dbc370)

  6. dirty FBI suckboy Jim Comey sent hot and horny Lisa Page’s boytoy over to ambush Mr. Flynn using a pretext generated by trashbag Sally Yates about the Logan Act that John Kerry has repeatedly violated

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  7. The buck stops with Trump. Having said that, in no way does this absolve the deceptive weasels in the FBI, DOJ, or any other embedded, self-interested bureaucracy of their activities over the course of the last 2 years.

    Colonel Haiku (45621b)

  8. Feckless actors all over the joint. For me, the one with the least to lose and the most direct responsibility to infuse light in this dark morass is Sessions.

    When will Occam’s razor kick in for you, Pat? Your caveats are each valid, though. No question.

    Ed from SFV (291f4c)

  9. I think the action of redacting fairly innocuous information that seems to only make an investigation look less solid is the telling part. If I am a target of an investigation and I am caught covering up, well, anything, it will pique the investigators interest in that thing or things.
    The FBI also seems to be redacting to protect its own, which again is the kind of behavior the FBI would see as guilt if the gumshoe was on the other foot.

    This is unsettling to me, this coaching lady justice behind a curtain and then putting a blindfold on her and trotting her out into the public eye while paragons of virtue like Mueller, Rosenstein and Comey seal clap.

    steveg (a9dcab)

  10. 1) Can we assume the redactors knew about the Mueller filing? It’s possible they did not realize the info was public.
    2) Going through the redacted sections, I don’t see much of anything which reflects negatively on the FBI/DOJ.
    3) I also don’t see much of anything which looks like it should have been redacted.
    So
    4) It’s actually a case of the cover-up being worse than the “crime”. Why is the DOJ acting guilty if it is not guilty?

    Kishnevi (e3cbf2)

  11. If you step back, you’ll see that the ones who have made this investigation into a circus are Trump, and his Trumpalos public and private — in Congress, on Fox, and on his payroll. Blowing smoke, b!tching and moaning, obscuring and distracting.

    As Beldar pointed out in the other thread, it’s not Mueller or his team who are going around on news shows trying their case in public. Mueller is conducting a quiet, professional investigation and doing his talking in court with indictments.

    That tells me that the smoke from the Trump team is because they’re afraid of the fire.

    nk (dbc370)

  12. And I don’t like (and I should have known better) Trump lying about the disclosure of Mueller’s questions to the NYT when it was his own people who did it. What a POS! But what can else can we expect from that orange-skinned pansy?

    nk (dbc370)

  13. Mueller is quietly using the time honored FBI tradition of leaks to get his investigation into the news cycle

    steveg (a9dcab)

  14. Herr Mueller and the dirty DOJ rosenstasi they’ve been leaking like crazy just ask Mr. Hannity

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  15. I didn’t see the proof Trump leaked those questions. Was it that article that claimed “poor grammar” as the smoking gun?

    I was skeptical of that assertion because it would be easy for someone on the Mueller team or even at the NYT to study Trump’s writing style and fake it.

    Of course Trump may have done it, but I think he’d have delegated it (I doubt he’d read all 49, his attention span doesn’t seem that long) and if he delegated it, the grammar wouldn’t be Trumpianalo… well, unless it was Don Jr

    If there was a better takedown of this out in the media, I missed it

    steveg (a9dcab)

  16. One question is when did the FBI decide – when was it written – that Mike Flynn hadn’t lied? By the way, the explanation Mike Flynn later gave was that his memory was bad, so it is not that what he said was false – it would be that he didn’t realize it was false. The whole thibng asa a sting operation, though.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  17. I again point to this:

    The FBI leaked about Mike Flynn twice around February 14:

    At 5:25 am February 15, Zero Hedge has this: (that’s Feb 15 in spite of the URL saying Feb 14. Note: Since I first looked at it the time here and in the other zerohedge posting seems to have been set back one hour – maybe some kind of correction related to Dayliht Savings Time)

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-14/mike-flynn-may-face-felony-charges-lying-fbi

    Mike Flynn May Face Felony Charges For Lying To The FBI

    This is before, or was set in motion before, the conversation James Comey had with Donald Trump on the night of February 14, 2017. (which was actually mostly about a New York Times story and other leaks)

    But by the end of the day – by 9 pm (or 10 pm) on February 15th, ` Zero Hedge reports:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-15/fbi-reportedly-will-not-pursue-charges-against-cooperative-and-truthful-mike-flynn

    FBI Reportedly Will Not Pursue Charges Against “Cooperative And Truthful” Mike Flynn

    And it says there:

    Earlier today, media reports hit that FBI agents interviewed Michael Flynn when he was national security adviser in the first days of the Trump administration about his conversations with the Russian ambassador.

    While it is not clear what he said in his interview, the FBI now adds that investigators “believed that Mr. Flynn was not entirely forthcoming, the officials said.”

    Here are some tweets from February 15, 2017 by Jim Sciutto, the Chief National Security Correspondent for CNN:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/832013379124486148?p=v

    Jim Sciutto Verified Account @jimsciutto

    Breaking: FBI NOT expected to pursue charges against #MichaelFlynn regarding phone calls w/Russian Ambassador, reports @evanperez

    3:45 PM – 15 Feb 2017

    Linked to that tweet as a reply is:

    Jim Sciutto Verified Account
    @jimsciutto

    Replying to @jimsciutto

    More: FBI says Flynn was cooperative and provided truthful answers
    3:47 PM – 15 Feb 2017

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  18. Comey was never asked what he thought of those FBI leaks, maybe because nobody on any committee discovered it, and maybe because it didn’t ft into either the Democrat or the Republican narrative:

    It hurt James Comey, but it also hurt Donald Trump, because it could look like Donald Trump obstructed justice…that both James Comey and Donald Trump did…that Donald Trump perhaps asked, perhaps improperly, (there’s doubt on both points) for charges to be dropped against Mike Flynn, and James Comey promptly dropped them!

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  19. Hannity’s leakers were probably from the US Attorney’s office in NYC. The NYT probably has a desk in the office and a seat or two in the top secret conference room.
    Mueller and Rosenstein both know how to get leaks out through third parties. James Comey has taught the American public all about how that gets done.
    To all the attorneys here, its probably no big deal… they may be accustomed to it as just how the sausage is made, but I think a lot of Americans find it disturbing and using a word Trump hammers away with, a “disgrace”.

    steveg (a9dcab)

  20. Can lawyers be forever redacted?

    mg (9e54f8)

  21. Cleansing America starts with redoing justice without a lawyer on our soil.

    mg (9e54f8)

  22. Don’t forget how Andy McCabe instructed for a leak, then covered himself by issuing a scathing rebuke for the leak to obfuscate. That’s a great insight how the FBI works, thank you Andy, and no one should ever trust them. The American public used to trust the FBI, but now they realize that they need to lawyer up

    steveg (a9dcab)

  23. Overall, though, the reason for the redactions does not jump out at me.

    To know the reason probably requires knowledge of other facts.

    5. nk (dbc370) — 5/7/2018 @ 8:17 am

    Re the FBI’s lie-dar: Flynn was the Army’s spy chief. Head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. And he rose to that position through the ranks in military intelligence. I expect he would know how not to give away anything to interrogators through body language.

    Of course that’s a ridiculous explanation of why they saiod he didn’t lie.

    I think maybe the FBI would like to redact ridiculous explanations, especially if somewhere there may be something still not public that contradicts it.

    Now: You’d only see changes in tone, posture, inflection and eye contact when somebody was taken by surporise and was making something up as he went along, but Flynn knew the subject matter of the interview, and wasn’t scared.

    And besides there probably actually were some changes in tone, posture, inflection and eye contact, because the FBI told him they might have knowledge of what that conversation actually consisted of, and did he want to stick with that story and then Flynn started saying that maybe his memory was bad. I read that somewhere.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  24. “Mueller is conducting a quiet, professional investigation and doing his talking in court with indictments.”

    Two judges in the last couple days disagree with you.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  25. In any case it is a dubious practice for a prosecutor to force a cooperating witness to plead guilty to a crime he didn’t commit. Perhaps Mr. Flynn is supplying testimony behind the scenes that puts all of this in a better light, but the facts on the public record to date don’t reflect well on Mr. Mueller’s prosecutorial tactics toward Mr. Flynn.

    The House report also reflects poorly on Mr. Comey’s credibility. Despite the transcript of his testimony, Mr. Comey at least three times on his book tour has denied telling Congress that the FBI agents did not think Mr. Flynn was lying. “Did you tell lawmakers that FBI agents didn’t believe former national security adviser Michael Flynn was lying intentionally to investigators?” Fox News’ Bret Baier asked Mr. Comey on April 26.

    the sleazy men and women of the FBI lie a lot

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  26. I think you got it right Patterico. Explaining the part about “the statements were inconsistent with our understanding of the conversation that he had actually had with the ambassador” can’t be done without explaining the sources and methods that led to that understanding. That’s the can of worms they don’t want to open to public scrutiny whether every action was legal and proper or not.

    Eventually the truth will be known. Rosenstein’s decision to delegate this to Mueller rather than run it himself as the Acting AG is the real problem. If Rosenstein was too conflicted to handle this then he’s too conflicted to choose the SC and supervise the SC’s investigation.

    crazy (5c5b07)

  27. In recent interviews, Comey seems to have claimed:

    1) He still didn’t know who paid Christopher Steele. (is that right?)

    2 That maybe the incident in the hotel room with the prostitutes took place

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  28. “the statements were inconsistent with our understanding of the conversation that he had actually had with the ambassador”

    they already knew everything about the conversation because they went to a rubberstamp FISA court waving cowardpig John McCain’s urinating hooker dossier

    Lisa Page’s pimp went over there with only one goal – to manufacture a process crime

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  29. “Some consider it impolite to point this out, but the president doesn’t really read.”

    What is this based on? Any facts or just the superiors passing judgement?

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  30. What is the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency doing talking to the Russian ambassador in the first place? Looking to defect?

    nk (dbc370)

  31. “Mueller is conducting a quiet, professional investigation and doing his talking in court with indictments.”

    Two judges in the last couple days disagree with you.

    Nate Ogden (223c65) — 5/7/2018 @ 9:12 am

    You mean when one judge questioned Muller in court whether he should be the one prosecuting Manafort, and another denied Mueller’s motion in court to delay filing the indictment?

    nk (dbc370)

  32. 11 and 12… as Steveg notes, selective leaks by the Mueller thing of theirs all along the way…

    Colonel Haiku (45621b)

  33. @nk The former director of the DIA.

    When he was the director of the DIA he spent a whole day (alone?) in GRU headquarters in Moscow in 2013.

    He was refused permission to do that a second time.

    They were kind of suspicious of him so Obama fired him.

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/michael-flynn-general-chaos

    In 2013, Flynn arranged a trip to Moscow to speak to a group of officers from the G.R.U., Russia’s intelligence agency, about leadership development. His decision to go was a controversial one. Flynn believed that there were opportunities to find common ground with Russia. But Steven Hall, the C.I.A.’s chief of Russia operations at the time, was skeptical. “He wanted to build a relationship with his counterparts in the G.R.U., which seemed, at best, quaint and naïve,” Hall told me. “Every time we have tried to have some sort of meaningful coöperation with the Russians, it’s almost always been manipulated and turned back against us.”

    Several months after Flynn returned from his Moscow trip, he hoped to reciprocate by inviting several senior G.R.U. officers to the United States. Clapper, the director of national intelligence, cautioned him against it. Russia had recently annexed Crimea, and Russian special-forces operatives were fomenting a violent clash between rebels and Ukrainian troops in eastern Ukraine.

    By then, Flynn had become a target of scorn for many inside the department. His deputy, David Shedd, became one of his harshest critics, and did little to hide his disdain. “I was walking by the front office once and heard David Shedd say, ‘I’m going to save the agency from the director,’ ” Simone Ledeen, who works in counter-threat finance at a multinational bank, said. Ledeen had worked for Flynn in Afghanistan, at the office for the director of national intelligence, and in the D.I.A., doing threat-assessment research. (She is also Michael Ledeen’s daughter.)

    Normally, a D.I.A. director serves for three or more years, but, in late 2013, Clapper and Michael Vickers, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, were concerned about the tumult inside the agency and told Flynn that his tenure would last just two years. Flynn unsuccessfully tried to extend his term when his successor’s nomination was delayed. Shedd later became the acting director.

    https://themoscowproject.org/collusion/michael-flynn-meets-g-r-u-moscow/

    In 2013, Flynn took a delegation to Moscow to meet with the G.R.U., despite the C.I.A.’s concerns. Flynn arranged the trip to Moscow “to speak to a group of officers from the G.R.U., Russia’s intelligence agency, about leadership development. His decision to go was a controversial one. Flynn believed that there were opportunities to find common ground with Russia.” Flynn wanted to visit the G.R.U. again and invited G.R.U. officers to come to the U.S., but “permission was denied.”

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  34. And indeed, McCarthy puts the ultimate blame for all of this on Donald Trump, noting that the president has the authority and duty to make sure redactions are proper:

    That leaves out one highly relevant fact: Trump has a special prosecutor on his ass, right from the beginning of his administration, who is looking to build an obstruction of justice case against him.

    Trump does something completely within his legitimate powers as POTUS, fire the head of the FBI, the SP wants to question him about his motivations. Any time Trump inserts himself into any decisions made by DOJ/FBI, the SP will want to know if Trump’s real motive was obstruction. Trump orders docs in the Flynn case unredacted; secret motive: Trump was trying to help Flynn in order to keep Flynn on his side, because he wants to obstruct.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  35. 28. They already knew everything about the conversation because the Russian Ambassador is probably eavesdropped on whenever possible. Now the reports do not mention the name of any U.S. persons he talked to. That requires a request to unmask the person.

    The alleged problem was the Logan Act, which anyway he didn’t violate. The fact of the conversation was leaked and later on, when that didn’t stop Flynn;s appointment as National Security adviser, the fact that sanctions on Russia had been discussed.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  36. “Mueller is conducting a quiet, professional investigation and doing his talking in court with indictments.”

    Selectively leaking all along the way. What a POS! But what can else can we expect from that goose-stepping Nazi pansy?

    Gee… that felt good. Almost.

    Colonel Haiku (45621b)

  37. “You mean when one judge questioned Muller in court whether he should be the one prosecuting Manafort…”

    No, I think it was the judge admonishing Mueller to not try to bullschiff teh bull, that it was obvious that Mueller had no real interest in bank accounts but wanted to overturn the election.

    Colonel Haiku (45621b)

  38. Trump sure brings out the very worst in his detractors.

    Colonel Haiku (45621b)

  39. … with most of the lawyers clinging to their principle of Stare Detritus…

    Colonel Haiku (45621b)

  40. BTW, Mueller was right in the Concord case. An attorney cannot “surrender” a defendant, or stipulate to the jurisdiction of the court, in a criminal case just by filing his appearance on behalf of the defendant. Specifically, with a corporate defendant, there must be either service of the warrant or summons on the corporation’s registered agent, or a corporate resolution signed by the board of directors stipulating to the corporation’s “surrender”.

    But this is a Trump-appointed judge who, even if he is being disinterested, may still be as knowledgeable about criminal law and procedure as that FEC guy with a beard McGanh the Second tried to push through.

    nk (dbc370)

  41. *She* Judge Dabney Friedrich is a lady.

    nk (dbc370)

  42. Was it that article that claimed “poor grammar” as the smoking gun?

    The claim was based on the idea that the document leaked to the press read like notes written down while listening to the actual question. IOW, someone on Team Trump writing down the gist and important details as Team Mueller read them, as opposed to a verbatim transcript of the questions.

    Kishnevi (e3cbf2)

  43. Sean Davis

    @seanmdav
    Replying to @seanmdav
    “Now compare those statements under oath from Comey with what he told @BretBaier on television last week. It’s extremely difficult to reconcile them.”

    Colonel Haiku (45621b)

  44. My takeaway on this is to recommend all conversations with FBI officials be recorded.

    If not by the FBI, at very least by the citizen participating in the conversation.

    If BLM is correct to advocate state and local police should wear “body cam” recording equipment, why should the idea not be embraced and generalized to federal authorities?

    pouncer (915d55)

  45. Gonna have to report you for a violation of the ADA, Patterico. Dyslexia should not be an obstacle to serving as President. We should be extending him every accommodation the law requires & praising him for overcoming his disability to achieve great things. You dyslexophobic bigot, you. 😉

    Daiwa (7d635f)

  46. The stronger reason I have for Team Trump leaking the questions is that Trump and Team Trump have shut up about it after the initial outburst. That’s not Trumplike behavior.

    nk (dbc370)

  47. Comey and Stormy. Ok, say they’re both no better than they should be. What does it say about what a weak sister Trump is that they’re giving him “such a tsuris”?

    nk (dbc370)

  48. 31 nk, have you read the transcripts? The judge has made it clear Mullers actions have been less than professional. Including in his actions those of staff working under him.

    Nate Ogden (e15be7)

  49. If it were only them, nk… if it were only them.

    Colonel Haiku (45621b)

  50. My takeaway on this is to recommend all conversations with FBI officials be recorded.

    Yes because the dirty men and women of the FBI lie all the time. They have no integrity and they’ll say anything it takes to crucify their target.

    It’s a truly vile, fascist, and fundamentally un-American organization.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  51. Nate @ 49. No, I have not read the transcripts. And do you mean Judge Ellis re Manafort or Judge Friedrich re Concord Management? But I understand, now, that it was the “professional investigation” and not the “in court” part of my comment that you were talking about.

    nk (dbc370)

  52. Trump has a special prosecutor on his ass, right from the beginning of his administration, who is looking to build an obstruction of justice case against him.

    This is a good point. Trump is very limited in how he can handle this. It’s hard to see him as having any discretion or common sense with how much he tweets about this case, but still.

    If BLM is correct to advocate state and local police should wear “body cam” recording equipment, why should the idea not be embraced and generalized to federal authorities?

    pouncer (915d55) — 5/7/2018 @ 10:23 am

    I think it’s often a good idea to record conversations, be they politicians being interviewed, cops recording interactions, or you recording your interview with the FBI. For one thing, it’s better than human memory, for another, there’s no solution like the truth sometimes.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  53. “… For me, the one with the least to lose and the most direct responsibility to infuse light in this dark morass is Sessions. …” Ed from SFV

    Is Sessions more loyal to the institution of the DOJ? What if he was as politically driven as Holder or Lynch? Shouldn’t he be?

    AZ Bob (9a6ada)

  54. BTW I agree with Ed.

    AZ Bob (9a6ada)

  55. Ellis took them to task pretty good.

    Nate Ogden (e15be7)

  56. Gryph: So, Trump humpers, what’s worse? That Trump may have know the redactions were improper and allowed them anyway, or that Trump probably doesn’t know and doesn’t care?

    That’s for Mueller-humpers to decide.

    Trump had the power to fire Comey. He also has the power to fire Mueller and Rosenstein, and to un-redact everything. When you hypocrites stop pulling the “obstruction of justice” BS, maybe he’ll do exactly that.

    random viking (44c9fa)

  57. Well, that’s a first. Patterico moderated me. Let’s see if I can bypass moderation.

    Let’s just be clear here. Trump-humpers like Hoagie, ropelight, and fornicateyoufeet are absolutely as evil as the most evil Obama-humpers. As far as the Special Persecutor (yes, I spelled that correctly), every part of the prosecution, including the special persecutor himself, is indelibly tainted by his or her 750 percent support of the lifelong felon Hillary Clinton, and his or her absolute approval of incrediblhy evil, heinous, and extra-legal methods to destroy anything they don’t like (like Almighty-loving and obeying (meaning fornicateyoufeet is excluded), Constitution-loving Conservatives (of which Trump never was and never will be one)).

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  58. Random Viking, until I see someone intelligent who says Trump has the power to “unredact everything”, I’ll go with my daughter’s opinion (who was given a top secret clearance). And that means you don’t know squat about the intelligence community.

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  59. 28. We don’t know how they know what we think they know about that Kislyak-Flynn conversation and they obviously don’t want to tell us. There are legitimate reasons to protect those sources and methods, particularly if it wasn’t gained by either routine NSA or FBI monitoring of foreign officials as we suspect. There could be a human source, for example, in a position to report on things like this for all we know. OTOH they may just be covering their institutional posteriors as long as politically possible. As long as DOJ allows the counter-intel investigation to either build or support criminal investigations the finger-pointing over the need to classify or declassify is going to fuel the anger on both sides to the satisfaction of no one except those who like it when the country and USG is a house divided.

    crazy (5c5b07)

  60. Well, that’s a first. Patterico moderated me. Let’s see if I can bypass moderation.

    That happened to me once where I blockquoted a comment from one of the posters here. I made a very short remark about how I disagreed, then blockquoted a couple of paragraphs from wiki with a link.

    The poster in question (maybe Dana) pulled it out of moderation and said something about how short comments with big blockquotes would sometimes get caught.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  61. Beldar provided an answer in another set of comments about his view on whether there was some kind of “conspiracy” at work between various current and former government officials, with a goal of short-circuiting and maybe ending the Trump presidency. My initial reaction to that question over the past several months was to discount it, as my general inclination is these kinds of matters is that such a conspiracy could never be kept secret because too many people would have to be in on the operation to pull it off, and there’s no way everyone could maintain complete discretion to keep it out of view. Someone would reveal it, even if simply through inadvertence or error.

    But there are some parts of the hearing transcript in the matter before Judge Ellis last week, involving claims made by Manafort’s attorney that were dodged by Dreeban without addressing them, and the questions from Judge Ellis that really have me scratching my head and beginning to wonder if there wasn’t a six month-or-longer operation underway that had a variety of contingencies depending on how things developed. I was always curious about how fast things developed with regard to the appointment of Mueller in the aftermath of Comey’s firing, with pretty much every angle having the ability to withstand WH pressure, and for the pace of the investigation to actually accelerate and keep the WH on the defensive — always one step behind.

    This is probably going to take more than one post, and I invite all to add other curious facts to the mix, as I’m sure I’ll leave much out.

    What happened in the hearing that makes me suspicious has to do with the status of the pre-existing Manafort investigation that had been conducted over a period of a few years by the Obama Justice Department, and which was apparently closed out by DOJ with a “declination” — meaning the prosecutors in one of the DOJ criminal sections (could be Public Corruption, or Fraud, etc), made the decision to not pursue an indictment based on the information the FBI had gathered. If anyone can fill in the time-line on the prior Manafort investigation, please do so.

    I have found that Manafort was interviewed by the FBI regarding his work in the Ukraine, in March 2013 and July 2014. Presumably it was after July 2014 that DOJ decided to not prosecute him for whatever activity they had uncovered. There as an anonymous quote in the coverage of the hearing last Friday from someone saying words to the effect of “We should have prosecuted him in 2014, we had him cold.”

    Here’s my supposition, to be added to as I come across other information:

    There was some synergy of thought among outgoing law enforcement, intelligence, and national security officials of the Obama Administration, and some of the same officials who were expected to holdover, and that synergy involved suspicions about Trump, Flynn, and Russia. By Dec. 2016, the allegations in the Steele memos had been in the hands of the Obama Admin. for six months, the Page FISA warrant had been up for 60+ days, and the Obama FBI and State Dept. were actively trying to run down the allegations.

    On Jan. 5 there is the meeting with Obama, Biden, and all the IC Chiefs plus Obama NSC folks. They go over ALL the findings with regard to Russia interference, and the ongoing investigation into Trump. IC Chiefs to brief Trump the next day at Trump Tower on Russia interference allegations, but caution is given to be careful about how much they share with INCOMING ADMINISTRATION.

    IC Chiefs decide to inform Trump about the salacious parts of Steele memos, BUT NOT THE PARTS ABOUT RUSSIAN COLLUSION allegations in the memos. Comey has comfirmed in last two weeks that he did not brief Trump on those issues as he didn’t deem it part of his “assignment” in his private meeting with Trump on Jan 6.

    SUPPOSITION No. 1 — the choice to have Comey go alone was intentional for reasons not yet obvious. Comey was expected to hold-over into Trump Admin. based on the different status of the FBI Dir. than the other IC Chiefs. Trump and his campaign are certainly SUBJECTS of the ongoing FBI investigation. That, my friends, is the reason Comey hurried away from the meeting and banged out a memo from memory of what was discussed between him and Trump, not because he was wanting to make entries in his diary. Its standard protocol in the FBI to memorialize in writing any conversation with a “subject” of an ongoing investigation. That is the reason why Comey documented each of his conversations with Trump in writing, not because he suddenly had the sensation that things would be different with Trump than had been the case with Obama and Bush. Trump was being investigated.

    And the fact that Comey was expected to holdover is the reason why he was sent into the room alone — standard FBI practice to develop a “rapport” with a subject or target, and try to get them to volunteer information to you without them knowing that they are the subject of an inquiry. Comey and the others knew that Comey would likey have meetings with Trump in the future, as well as on Jan 6, so he was the only one of them in a position to begin building that “rapport” that might pay off down the line. And that’s exactly what happened over the course of their meeting and phone calls.

    But Comey understood certainly by March 2017 when he testified before Congress that his relationship with Trump was headed downhill, and Trump firing him in the near term was certainly a possibility. IMO, that likely set off a round of meetings and conversations to plan for that possible development in the weeks/months ahead, and the planners were the same people who were onboard with the investigation back in Dec 2016 and Jan 2017.

    More on Manafort in next entry.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  62. Random Viking, until I see someone intelligent who says Trump has the power to “unredact everything”, I’ll go with my daughter’s opinion (who was given a top secret clearance). And that means you don’t know squat about the intelligence community.

    The President has the authority to declassify any document. If you think about it, that’s the only way it could be. Otherwise, it would be the case that people under the president’s command could make decisions about the appropriate classification of a document, but the president himself would have to just accept his underlings’ decisions on those matters. Not the way it works.

    Of course, if any president started declassifying docs willy-nilly, exposing US secrets to the world, he could be impeached for that failure to faithfully execute his duties.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  63. <em28. We don’t know how they know what we think they know about that Kislyak-Flynn conversation and they obviously don’t want to tell us.

    Is that one of those unknown unknowns?

    Colonel Haiku (45621b)

  64. 28. We don’t know how they know what we think they know about that Kislyak-Flynn conversation and they obviously don’t want to tell us.

    Is that one of those unknown unknowns?

    Colonel Haiku (45621b)

  65. Hitchcock, I don’t claim to know squat about the intelligence community — except that I’m sure there are legions of intelligence experts and those with security clearances who think their work is beyond oversight by any branch of government. Someone coined it as “a higher loyalty”.

    random viking (44c9fa)

  66. Nk at 40 – how about you post a citation for that claim.

    Fed. Rule CRIMINAL Proc. 43(b) says an organizational defendant can appear through its counsel, without the presence of any personal representative.

    The Reed Smith Attorneys filed via ECF a “Notice of Appearance” — which is the standard practice since the adoption of ECF for Attorneys to make appearances in criminal cases prior to their being a court hearing.

    That constitutes a representation by officers of the court that they have the legal and factual authority to appear on behalf of the named organizational defendant. While its certainly possible that some other attorney could make a limited appearance on behalf of Concord to dispute the “Notice of Appearance” by the Reed Smith attorneys on the basis that they didn’t have authority from Concord to do so, that is a different question. But the appearance through counsel by an organization defendant — unless contested in the fashion I describe — is sufficient for the court to invoke its jurisdiction over the party. If the Special Counsel had been contacted by another attorney on behalf of Concord and claimed that the Reed Smith attorneys did not have authority to appear, then the motion made by Rhee might have been in order. But they didn’t.

    The motion was a transparent effort to stall the arraignment for SIX WEEKS!!!!!

    Why would they want to do that??

    So they don’t have to begin producing discovery that is going to be pipelined straight to the Russian Gov’t.

    The Court’s response (a “Thought Bubble”) — “You should have thought of that before you asked the GJ to return and indictment on a Russian corporation.”

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  67. Obviously, the President has the right to SEE any classified document. Whether he has the right to declassify ANY document – skip the intelligence communities recommendations – and give it to someone else… I wonder.

    In any case, there’s no reason why Trump couldn’t call Rosenstein into the White House and meet with Nunes and have a “Frank” discussion about why these documents can’t be handed over, and then order Rosenstein to hand them over.

    Why he’s always tweeting – instead of acting – is beyond me.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  68. And whole Flynn thing is just getting more and more bizarre. So, Flynn was investigated for breaking the Logan Act? Then why isn’t Kerry being investigated? Why hasn’t anyone ever been convicted of breaking the Logan Act?

    I hope all the IG reports will give us Rubes aka the American Public some idea of what is going on.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  69. Trump tweeted that Mueller is trying to drag out his investigation to help the D’s in the mid-terms. Which is 100 percent correct.

    Hopefully, Trump will do something about it.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  70. Clapper told Comey to meet with Trump alone or in a small group for when he told him about the John McCain urinating hooker dossier.

    Clapper was already canoodling with CNN fake news propaganda slut Jake Tapper, and too large a group meant the story could leak and he’d promised this story to Jakey.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  71. Doesn’t the President hold the highest security clearance there is?
    He should be able see any document he wants without redactions, and additionally I’d assume his AG, WH counsel, etc. would need to see the document to discuss it with the President and perhaps debate as to whether redactions are truly necessary.
    The FBI is weasel-like, so they probably throw some unrelated or wildly tangential names into documents (like Schiff likes to do) so there may be a need to leave some redactions, but the
    weasel(s) who wrote it should be tracked down and fired

    steveg (a9dcab)

  72. OT but I told y’all so: Ted Cruz has finally come around to opposing the filibuster outright:<blockquoteNRO: You mentioned 50 votes a lot of times. The president has made it clear he’s fed up with the filibuster for legislation. Are you?

    Cruz: I agree with the president we should end the filibuster. I didn’t used to think that. A few years ago, I opposed that. What’s changed is two things. Number one, the level of Democratic obstruction we’re seeing is simply unprecedented: They are filibustering everything — virtually every nominee, virtually every substantive piece of legislation. Number two, I no longer believe the Democrats will be bound by the filibuster: I think that if and when the Democrats take the majority, they will take away the filibuster in a heartbeat. It doesn’t make any sense for it to be a one-way constraint.

    That being said, we don’t have the votes right now to end the filibuster within the Republican conference. We may have about half the Republicans who would support it, but there is a significant number that wouldn’t. So what I’m suggesting is, for the next six months, let’s focus on procedural vehicles that can’t be filibustered.If Cruz had actively campaigned on this in 2016, he could have begun laying the public relations groundwork necessary to push the GOP stalwart senators stuck in the past into recognition of the filibuster’s inevitable demise when next the Dems have the Senate and WH again. Trump sputters about this periodically, but since he doesn’t understand the history of the filibuster, or more broadly of the distinct role the Senate has historically played in the balance of power within the legislative branch and in that branch’s relations with the Executive and Judicial branches, Trump can neither persuade the senators himself nor effectively mobilize public opinion to sway them. And to my knowledge, there are few if any GOP senate candidates now campaigning on a pledge to abolish the filibuster before the Dems have a chance to.

    Thus, this historic opportunity, in which the GOP (treating Trump as part of it) controls the WH and both chambers of Congress, has mostly been lost. Obamacare persists. Good for Cruz for looking for more procedural tricks to try to make due with 50 votes between now and November, but it’s frankly too little and too late. And of course, instead of actually trying to move the GOP agenda forward, the nation is instead consumed by furor over payoffs to porn stars and a special counsel investigating to see whether the POTUS is as guilty as he’s been acting throughout his term in office.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  73. The planning was to insure that the ongoing investigation could carry forward into the Trump Administration and that Trump would not be in a position to do anything about it without suffering potentially fatal political damage.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  74. Sorry, those middle two paragraphs in #74 are quoted from Cruz’ interview at NRO and ought to have been block-quoted.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  75. EVERYONE should listen to Hugh Hewitt’s interview today with John Yoo on the question of whether the President can be subpoenaed to appear before a Grand Jury.

    IMO he’s got it 100% correct. You cannot subpoena a sitting POTUS because of the Separation of Powers Doctrine.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  76. I think the Mueller team idea for the mid terms is to try to convince the people; stimulate Democrat turnout and suppress Republicans by depicting Trump as out of control and in need of a House and Senate opposing him.
    There will be a lot of leaking because there are 13 Trump haters and 13 partisan Democrats on that team and at least one completely amoral character.

    The Democrats won’t mention impeachment much (if they are disciplined) but if they carry the election they will go into impeachment overdrive.

    The interesting thing to me is that Trump is managing the country just fine. His personality flaws are not really carrying over into how he is leading. Now of course the democrats oppose his policies but hopefully the people will be smart enough to know that Trump the businessman is running the country not Trump the pussy grabbing, skank banging twitter fiend

    steveg (a9dcab)

  77. “all conversations with FBI officials be recorded.” Works for me.

    Man this story gets more complicated all the time.
    Kudos to all you folks who can internalize it all.
    I don’t even try.

    gp (0c542c)

  78. #69, I agree.

    But just to reiterate, fornicatefeet, ropelight, and hoagie are such extreme Trump-humpers as to absolutely reject everything they say. Beyond that, fornicatefeet has an absolute problem with the Bible, where fornicatefeet rejects at least 70 percent of it.

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  79. NPR
    @NPR
    Connecticut is poised to commit its electoral votes to whichever U.S. presidential candidate wins the nation’s popular vote — regardless of who wins the state.

    — –

    AustinAg
    @WestAustinAg
    So constitutional republics are outdated…good to know. Let the mob decide.

    — –

    Gregory Whitley
    @GamecockTRD
    Replying to @NPR
    By the people, for the people……. unless we decide differently apparently

    — –

    Travis
    @TPum01
    Replying to @NPR
    Conn just told its voters “We don’t care what you think. The rest of the country knows better.”

    — –

    JWF
    @JammieWF
    Will be hilarious next time a Republican wins the popular vote, but Connecticut’s EVs puts them over the top.

    harkin (c60926)

  80. “The interesting thing to me is that Trump is managing the country just fine. His personality flaws are not really carrying over into how he is leading.”

    But that’s not good enough, because they don’t like the fact he won the election.

    Colonel Haiku (45621b)

  81. One of Cruz’ objectives after he ended his campaign was to not stir anymore the hornet’s nest that is the Senate. It was a big mistake, but I understood the impetus.

    He has identified the first, and easiest, mandatory structural fix if we are to have any hope of continuing as the country we are. If everything is subject to a super-majority AND whims of individual senators who have absolute power to stall the process, no reforms worth a spit are possible.

    My guess is that one day, assuming he does not become a federal judge, Ted will be a leader in the Article V movement. This, too, will be a development too-long delayed.

    Ed from SFV (291f4c)

  82. I like John Yoo. He can be funny and disarming. He handed Jon Stewart his head and smiled while he did it. I think I read somewhere he doesn’t like Trump, but who cares, everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

    I’d like to see the question of whether the President can be subpoenaed to appear before a Grand Jury argued so it would be set one way or the other. Plus the arguments and decision documents would be interesting and informative

    steveg (a9dcab)

  83. Rule 43 only addresses the defendant’s presence in court. Not obtaining personal jurisdiction.

    Rule 4 is for return of summons. I’m not even sure, from the plain language of the Rule, that service of summons can be waived by a corporate resolution but that, instead, there must be actual service.

    While its certainly possible that some other attorney could make a limited appearance on behalf of Concord to dispute the “Notice of Appearance” by the Reed Smith attorneys on the basis that they didn’t have authority from Concord to do so, that is a different question.

    When? At the conclusion of the trial or when the government tries to enforce the fine? Lack of personal jurisdiction will render all the proceedings void.

    nk (dbc370)

  84. 86 — NK. A defendant can concede jurisdiction by appearing, even without a summons. I had it happen several times — like when an organizational defendant comes into court for the very first time to plead guilty to a criminal information when no indictment has been returned, and no summons issued.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  85. Has U.S. v. Nixon been overruled? Granted, it was only for tapes and documents in the President’s possession and not the President’s testimony, but it was significant for the holding that the grand jury is part of the judicial power (and not an extension of the special counsel’s Article II authority).

    nk (dbc370)

  86. 86 — and the organizational defendant’s “Presence” in court, in the age of ECF, can be announced by a “NOTICE OF APPEARANCE” by an attorney on behalf of that organization.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  87. Nixon was a trial subpoena for documents, not for the compelled testimony of POTUS.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  88. … the House Intelligence Committee Report on Russia.

    Pfft. More meaningless chaff from NR. Nunes long ago destroyed the credibility of anything coming out of that the committee. McCarthy just doesn’t get how it’s done these days. If he really wants to rant about selective redactions by super secretive government agencies and get the attention of busy Americans, drill into the Pentagon about flying saucers, frozen aliens and reverse pinhole cameras hidden in flat screen TeeVees. Our Captain has a publisher pal willing to help get the word out. Or just follow the example of another McCarthy. Andrew, meet Kevin:

    “Listen to me! Please listen! If you don’t, if you won’t, if you fail to understand, then the same incredible terror that’s menacing me will strike at you!” – Miles Bennell [Kevin McCarthy] ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers’ 1956

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  89. 86 — for a foreign corporation, it can probably happen in both those instances. And the Court may determine, in hindsight, that it lacked jurisdiction all along, set aside all prior rulings, and vacate any judgment.

    BUT, to do so it would have to determine that the attorneys who filed the notice of appearance acted, in fact, without authority to do so. The malfeasance would be on the part of the attorneys who made the appearance.
    How long do you think those attorneys would be licensed in the aftermath of such a finding?

    But before there is any suggestion that such a problem potentially exists, there is nothing that prevents the matter from moving forward based on the Rules of Criminal Procedure. A key issue in the calculus is that in criminal cases there is a constitutional and statutory dimension to a defendant’s “Speedy Trial Rights.” The Reed Smith lawyers rightfully pointed out that the motion by the SC would have a significant impact on those rights of the defendant.

    I had a judge throw out a settlement that the other side was trying to judicially enforce against my client, based on work done by a prior attorney, when I convinced the Court that it never had jurisdiction over the case. It was a probate court, litigating a trust dispute over property, and I convinced the court the property was never properly part of the trust, so the court lacked jurisdiction from the very outset of the litigation.

    So it happens that an entire case can proceed, and then be vacated, on the basis of a mistake with regard to jurisdiction.

    Indictment is filed.

    Two licensed attorneys admitted to practice before the Court make an official court filing in the form of a General “Notice of Appearance” making a representation to the Court and SC that they represent one of the named defendants. An arraignment date is set.

    There is nothing at that point which warrants inquiry into the status of the service of the summons. As the Reed Smith lawyers pointed out, if the SC had complied with Rule 4, there wouldn’t be any issue with the service. And they tell the Court they are intending to enter a NG plea on behalf of their client.

    Upon what basis should the court have given the SC six weeks????

    And, do you know that Judge Friedrich — yes, a Trump appointee — is married to Matthew Friedrich?

    Do you know why that is significant???

    Google Weissman/Friedrich/Enron/Arthur Anderson.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  90. #69

    I know a man who is one of the pre-eminent Bible scholars and translators. When I was a kid someone thought it would be a good idea for him to teach our Sunday School class. It was not. (yawn)

    He is a good man, but was absolutely vilified by the Christian right of the time for his noting that in his opinion Matthew was the disciple who wrote with an embellishing flourish and additionally Matthew seemed to deeply dislike and distrust Peter.
    The inerrancy people about lost their minds.

    Point is that people take very deep dives into the oldest texts and come up with different opinions.
    Most of rest of us move through life stumbling and bumbling hopefully toward the truth and 30% is a heck of a lot better than 0

    steveg (a9dcab)

  91. Re:#93… I draw the line at human sacrifice… beheadings, the concept just seems so strict!

    Colonel Haiku (45621b)

  92. It’s interesting that people say “this looks bad for the FBi, DOJ & Trump.” These are documents that were asked for a long time ago. Trump has very little to do with it.

    As for Trump. He let’s DOJ/FBI decide what to redact, it comes out later its bad and “it’s bad for Trump.” Had Trump jumped in from the beginning and said unredact, “OMG. It’s a dictorship and Trump is jeopardizing national security.”

    Which way should he have gone not to incur bad “optics.”

    Steve_in_SoCal (58e1f9)

  93. @81

    You haven’t been around in a while. I’ve seen him reject as much as 159% of it.

    Pinandpuller (aac057)

  94. Well, that’s a first. Patterico moderated me.

    More accurately, my filter did, for your initial name for happyfeet, which you modified to fornicateyoufeet to bypass the filter.

    Patterico (5f0ab0)

  95. @ Ed from SFV (#84): Cruz appears to be on board with the idea, but Texas governor Greg Abbott is already a very vocal proponent of an Article V constitutional convention — as am I, if but only if it’s “done right” (which is, of course, the big if). Federal legislators like Cruz can and should have a voice, but it’s quintessentially the responsibility of the states, through their respective governors and legislators, to champion if it’s ever to happen.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  96. Mr John Hitchcock

    As it happens, my son is in the Philippines right now also so if you see him say hi for me, won’t you?

    Pinandpuller (aac057)

  97. say hi for me too i love the bible

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  98. Why are you dipping into the Project Bluebook ink, Mr DCSCA?

    Pinandpuller (aac057)

  99. Our host wrote (#2) above:

    swc, Dysphoria Sam, and narciso all unmoderated.

    Amnesty day at Patterico.com!

    Well, the quality of mercy is not strained (but most of his beneficiaries’ arguments are). Will our host be given due credit for his tolerance? Likely not.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  100. Beldar — I didn’t gripe one time in moderation. I don’t think the vacation was fair, BUT its Patrick’s blog, I’m here voluntarily, and sometimes a point needs to be made by management.

    Before that episode I told him that I was going to made a concerted effort to better “self-edit” my comments to keep them factual, and not personal. I reserve the right to disagree with him and others — including you — when I think the facts warrant it, but to do so in a way that we can all agree is simply a vigorous and energetic debate. I can’t ask it of others if I’m unwilling to do it myself.

    So, while I thought the forced vacation wasn’t justified by what he pointed to, it didn’t harangue him in moderation over the fact.

    I’ve missed out on some interesting subjects, but one aspect of reality in a Trump administration is that another interesting subject is never too far away.

    So, I hope you’ll remove the “Block” if you are still employing it. I have a response to the “shame” exchange that you took offense to, and I’ll happily post it if you are interested.

    Someone might need to mention to Beldar that I’m directing this at him, as he won’t see it unless he removes the block.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  101. Pinandpuller, there are 100 million Filipinos. There are over 14 million residents of Metro Manila. I am one of untold numbers of “visitors” to Manila. I say “magandang umaga” to those I meet because after noon, I’m in my hotel room with mahal ko, who doesn’t like to be out and about, whether in Manila or her home just outside Villasis.

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  102. No, swc, I don’t want to read your “response” to the “shame” exchange, unless it’s an unqualified apology. And frankly, even that wouldn’t restore the respect you’ve already forfeited in my personal evaluation of you. That ship sailed months ago.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  103. #98, you and the truncation for your site are one and the same. I suspect 98 percent of my comments bypass your notice because I’m more brazen and attack-dog than you prefer while remaining in the Principled Right which doesn’t hump Trump’s leg. The other 2 percent, one got caught in moderation due to my unusual choice of terminology for a person I held marches, protests, riots, and kum by ya (yeah, I can’t spell if it’s not English) meetings for the expulsion thereof, and the rest were worthy of no noticeable response.

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  104. lol shipwreck’s ship sailed

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  105. One thing maybe somebody can explain:

    Donald Trump seems to think that ordering the DOJ and the FBI to replease unredacted documents, and firing Mueller, are different aspects opf the same thing: presidential interference with law enforcement.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  106. 105 — it wasn’t an apology.

    You’re characterization of what I wrote was incorrect.

    You’re unwillingness to contemplate the possibility that maybe you might have been in error, says a lot.

    Going over the horizon now.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  107. Fornicateyoufeet, you reject at least 70 percent of the Bible. You reject the Old Testament, the writings of Paul, Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, and some of what Jesus Himself said. You revel in sin and have bought a one way ticket to Hell. If you don’t repent and “stop sinning” as Jesus told the adultress, you will find yourself in Hell. Of that, I am 100 percent certain.

    And Haiku, I meant what I said when I gave you that article I wrote. At least 90 percent of the people who call themselves Christians today are Laodiceans. And you are closer to a Baal worshiper than the Laodiceans ropelight and Hoagie.

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  108. @101. The truth is out there, PP.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  109. But you might want to go back to McCarthy’s column about “Why the Secrecy” and then read his last 2 paragraphs before you double down on your “I can quote Andy to Andy about no comments on non-public facts.”

    You missed the boat there.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  110. everyone needs to stop sinning it’s not just me

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  111. 72. happyfeet (28a91b) — 5/7/2018 @ 12:16 pm

    Clapper told Comey to meet with Trump alone or in a small group

    No, he told him to meet with Trump alone.

    https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-jcomey-060817.pdf

    The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the
    incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious
    and unverified. Among those reasons were: (1) we knew the media was about to
    publicly report the material and we believed the IC should not keep knowledge of
    the material and its imminent release from the President-Elect; and (2) to the
    extent there was some effort to compromise an incoming President, we could blunt
    any such effort with a defensive briefing.

    The Director of National Intelligence asked that I personally do this portion
    of the briefing because I was staying in my position and because the material
    implicated the FBI’s counter-intelligence responsibilities. We also agreed I would
    do it alone
    to minimize potential embarrassment to the President-Elect. Although
    we agreed it made sense for me to do the briefing, the FBI’s leadership and I were
    concerned that the briefing might create a situation where a new President came
    into office uncertain about whether the FBI was conducting a counter-intelligence
    investigation of his personal conduct

    It is important to understand that FBI counter-intelligence investigations are
    different than the more-commonly known criminal investigative work….

    …In that context, prior to the January 6 meeting, I discussed with the FBI’s
    leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that
    we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open
    counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances
    warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President-
    Elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the
    question, I offered that assurance.

    Note that caveat: OPEN

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  112. happyfeet:

    the John McCain urinating hooker dossier.

    It’s not John McCain’s dossier, although he obtained a version of it too in December. (or maybe there was only one by that point)

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  113. Mr John Hitchcock

    If you see a very white boy, mid 20’s in combat medic getup you could probably convince Barry Scheck he’s my son. He has his mom’s sides unfortunate complexion.

    I’m glad you are well. I heard a funny story about how Spain treats expats from America seeking driving privileges but I’m on mobile now. I don’t blame you for staying off the road though.

    Pinandpuller (279413)

  114. The buck stops with the president.

    Trump seems to think taht firing Mueller and ordering DOJ to release documents is the same thing.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  115. There are two things in the memo that are worth highlighting as relate to that blockbuster CNN story from Jan 10 2017.

    First, Comey claims that briefing the president-elect was the brainchild of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

    “I said there was something that Clapper wanted me to speak to the [president-elect] about alone or in a very small group,” Comey wrote. More on that in a bit.

    “I then executed the session exactly as I had planned,” Comey noted before going into details of what he claimed he told the president-elect.

    that’s what he wrote in his memo Mr. Finkelman

    i’m not surprised he lied to Congress

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  116. Sammy, DOJ and FBI have been filled with “above the law” Leftists. Of that, I am certain. Trump is also an “above the law” Leftist, but one who claims to be Republican. It is evil fighting evil. And, regardless of the outcome, Satan wins. Because we are not fighting flesh and blood; we are fighting a spiritual fight against Evil.

    When you support 70 percent evil over 97 percent evil, which is supporting Trump over Democrats, due to the false dichotomy fallacy too many evil people (ropelight, haiku, Hoagie) worship, you are supporting Satan. Because you are not fighting the spiritual war that is ongoing. Patterico, Beldar, DRJ, adj-free Dana and I are fighting that spiritual war. Some to a greater degree than others. But the false-dichotomy clowns are absolutely on the wrong side of that spiritual war.

    Guess what. The entire world will eventually be united on the wrong side of that spiritual war, and as long as I walk the Earth, I will be on the right side of that spiritual war.

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  117. Trump seems to think taht firing Mueller and ordering DOJ to release documents is the same thing.

    I suspect he believes that either would be received in the same light as his firing of Comey: Obstruction of Justice. That doesn’t mean he has that intent or believes that he would be operating in either an illegal or unethical manner. But, as a political matter, that’s how it would be portrayed.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  118. Fornicateyoufeet, until you admit that absolutely ZERO people who are strident homosexuals or supposedly transexuals will enter Heaven, you neither love the Lord nor obey Him. Which means you and your ilk have bought a one-way ticket to Hell. You cannot get to Heaven and support your agenda at the same time. And the ultimate goal in life is to get to Heaven and avoid Hell, which Trump and his humpers have failed.

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  119. Well dang, John Hitchcock is completely right on this issue. And he’s right on what it means to be right. Even if the whole world stops caring about having honorable leaders, that doesn’t mean the few holdouts have lost the argument. We made a mistake, as a nation, electing Donald Trump. Maybe that mistake was the GOP primary process, maybe it’s our culture, and maybe it’s something else, deeper.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  120. (I wasn’t talking about the comment about gays, but about the 2:41 pm one). I think gays can go to heaven just as much as any person can. All people are sinful by nature, and all people will die sinful and mistaken.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  121. 119 — and in his interview with Bret Baier (I think), when asked if he briefed Trump on the other parts of the Steele memos about collusion between his campaign and the Russians, he said “No”, he didn’t consider that part of his “assignment.”

    So, he’s offered a variety of curious phrasing to describe what he did.

    Was it a “session” he “executed” “as I had planned”, or was it an “assignment” he was given by others, which had specific boundaries and off-limit subjects??

    Did he communicate the substance of his meeting with Trump to any of the other 3 IC Chiefs who had collectively decided he should do the briefing alone?

    Did he relay any information about the briefing to any of the WH officials with whom he had met the previous day in advance of the briefing, when Obama told them to be careful about what they shared with the Trump transition people?

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  122. Well… it’s finally happened. 13 years after the Airbus A380’s maiden flight in Toulouse, France on April 27th, 2005 and its first commercial flight on October 25th, 2007 from Singapore to Sydney with Singapore Airlines, Chicago’s very own O’Hare International Airport finally has regularly-scheduled A380 service…before today, only 2 A380’s had ever been to O’Hare before…

    i’ve never seen one

    that’s really something

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  123. Joe Weisenthal
    @TheStalwart
    57% of Americans say things are going in the right direction. The highest level since 2007.

    https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/05/07/politics/cnn-poll-trump-steady-right-direction-rises/index.html?__twitter_impression=true

    “The President’s improving issue ratings come amid a sharp rise in positive impressions of how the country is doing. Overall, 57% say things are going well in the US today — up from 49% saying the same in February — which is the largest proportion to say so since January of 2007.”

    harkin (c60926)

  124. all gays go to heaven

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  125. Pinandpuller, let me know when he’ll be at the megamall, and let him know you told me. It will take more effort than being at the same mall at the same time (imagine being at the Rose Bowl Parade at the same time) to meet, but that will be a start.

    I would actually like to meet people I talk with online, if only to beat the crap out of fornicateyoufeet and share dinner with Beldar or DRJ.

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  126. Mr John Hitchcock

    My mom saw someone she knew at The San Diego Zoo. It’s possible

    Pinandpuller (279413)

  127. Fornicateyoufeet, The Lord Almighty said in the Old Testament that homosexuality is an abomination. He amplified that in the New Testament, calling it a sin, a choice, and a rejection of the Lord’s Commands. There will be absolutely ZERO active homosexuals who, upon death, will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, because they have ABSOLUTELY REJECTED the Lord’s commands.

    I repeat, anyone who calls himself a Christian and at the same time practices homosexuality will receive the “Depart from me, I never knew you!” demand from the Almighty Lord Himself.

    And if you don’t repent from that sin, you are doomed to an eternity in Hell.

    And absolutely nothing in this comment is hyperbolic. Nor is any of this comment in contradiction to anything the Almighty said, or the Prophets wrote, or the Apostles wrote. If you’re an active participant or an active supporter of homosexuality, you are an active supporter of an Abomination the Lord declared CANNOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, REACH HEAVAN.

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  128. I agree with you about the trannies Mr. Hitchcock, but gay people are very nice and Jesus loves them very much.

    He loves the trannies too, but I just can’t picture trannies in heaven.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  129. I don’t think mr happyfeet is more than 30% gay.

    Pinandpuller (279413)

  130. @28. McCain certainly has a high opinion of himself, Mr. Feet.

    Wants a funeral at National Cathedral; wants former Presidents Obama and Bush to deliver eulogies; yet says nyet to the current President of the United States. And what of Carter or Clinton? Another naval aviator- and a significantly more accomplished American as well– who’ll be remembered long after McCain is forgotten dust- had a modest burial at sea and a moon or two later with friends, family and colleagues at that same cathedral. And no presidents attended. His name was Neil Armstrong.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  131. Dustin, if you read any part of the Bible that comes after Acts, you will find that any who actively participate in homosexuality are barred from Heaven. Only those who repent of their homosexuality and no longer participate or condone it will be granted a ticket to Heaven (provided they accepted the other requirements for that ticket).

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  132. @133. – a memorial with friends, family and colleagues at that same cathedral, that is.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  133. What’s the deal with this pitcher from SF with the braids? I don’t see how that could be comfortable at all. I’m jus waiting for take away. Don’t mistake me for a sports fan.

    Pinandpuller (279413)

  134. Pinandpuller, I fly out of Manila on the 14th, which means the last time I’ll see the Megamall is the 13th, and then only because I have a specific goal in mind.

    I met someone from Twitchy a few years ago outside Angeles City, and I very much enjoyed meeting him, his wife, their daughter, and their housekeeper. My lady and I enjoyed it very much. My lady calls his wife “ate”.

    I have not met someone from my blog (which I’ve basically abandoned) or adj-Dana’s blog (even though I’ve tried a few times). And I have not met anyone from this blog.

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  135. Fornicateyoufeet, I love my daughter more than life itself.

    I beat my daughter’s butt far more than anyone in the neighborhood even said “boo” to their kids.

    My daughter is a well-adjusted adult, an Army veteran, an employee at a national bank with the responsibility to catch bank fraud and money laundering.

    The neighbor kids are in prison, or have prison records, or have terminal diseases, or have 4 kids from 4 baby daddies while still unmarried.

    Love doesn’t mean accepting an Abomination into a place that is far more holy than the Holy of Holies. There will be ABSOLUTELY ZERO ACTIVE HOMOSEXUALS AND ABSOLUTELY ZERO PROPONENTS OF HOMOSEXUALITY in Heaven. Of that, I am absolutely, positively certain, as the Almighty Creator is my Witness.

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  136. #78

    Here is the law review article Hewitt discussed with Yoo. https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs/1602/
    For non-lawyers like myself, the history of the Burr trial was interesting.

    Burr’s lawyer examining prospective juror: Sir, have you not said, “Col. Burr should be hanged?”
    Juror: No. I said hanging is too good for him.

    Stu707 (2b10e0)

  137. That’s not true though Mr. Hitchcock.

    Gay people go to heaven all the time.

    Ask the Pope he’ll tell you.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  138. pinandpuller, at 129: i’ve run into people unexpectedly at coachella, in a crowd of 125K people. it’s always surprising when it happens, but it’s *possible*. :)

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  139. Allianz says it will stop insuring coal-fired power plants and coal mines as part of its contribution to combating climate change.

    Europe’s biggest insurer says it’s also set itself a goal of phasing out investments in coal companies and increasing its use of renewable energy by 2040.

    europeans are ridiculous

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  140. pinandpuller, at 129: i’ve run into people unexpectedly at coachella, in a crowd of 125K people. it’s always surprising when it happens, but it’s *possible*. :)

    Could’ve been visions caused by either teh peyote or mescaline?

    Colonel Haiku (45621b)

  141. Well Mr John Hitchcock if you ever come to Nashville to see The Johnny Cash museum I will meet you down there and you can slap me in lieu of mr happyfeet because I don’t condemn him or Mr DJT enough. I hope you don’t slap me but I probably have it coming.

    Pinandpuller (279413)

  142. Westboro Baptist Church in the house?

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  143. Mous, no. Not at all. Westboro are all evil. As is Trump.

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  144. And Fornicateyoufeet, I will assume the Creator of the Universe is more knowlegeable about who enters into the Creator of the Universe’s house than a human who was created.

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  145. What I’ve found are that the most vociferous Bible-thumpers, chock-full of condemnation, piss and vinegar are often compensating for some grave misdeeds and sins they can’t quite put in the rearview mirror.

    Colonel Haiku (45621b)

  146. If you run into Lindsey Lohan, mr aphrael, run away!

    Pinandpuller (279413)

  147. Who are the good?

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  148. 139 — from the broadcast, i was laughing about Burr having had dinner with the judge during the trial — who happened to be the SCOTUS Chief Justice John Marshall, who was out riding the circuit in the area where the trial took place.

    And after the was acquitted, Burr had dinner with Pres. Jefferson who had directed the prosecution effort via correspondence while the case was underway.

    LOL.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  149. Muller’s professionalism;

    http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/386508-federal-judge-rightly-rebukes-mueller-for-questionable-tactics

    For those who argue that everything is fair, if the goal is to prevent a president from being above the law, Ellis provided a compelling response: “What we don’t want in this country, we don’t want anyone with unfettered power … It’s unlikely you’re going to persuade me the special counsel has unlimited powers to do anything he or she wants.”

    He was referring to the manner by which the special counsel was using his power to “tighten the screws” on Manafort by indicting him for an alleged crime that the judge believes has nothing to do “with what the special counsel is authorized to investigate.” Civil libertarians should be applauding Ellis for seeking to cabin the “unfettered power” of the special counsel to do “anything he wants.” But no, because his ruling may help Trump, and because Trump has applauded it, the civil liberties and criminal defense communities have not been heard from.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  150. Dustin, if you read any part of the Bible that comes after Acts, you will find that any who actively participate in homosexuality are barred from Heaven. Only those who repent of their homosexuality and no longer participate or condone it will be granted a ticket to Heaven (provided they accepted the other requirements for that ticket).

    John Hitchcock

    I’m not going to pretend I’m God and judge others, and I think those who try to do this are hurting themselves. My sincere advice to you is to not worry about this stuff. Jesus did not command you to judge one another. He commanded you to love one another. I fall way short of that all the time, but I try.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  151. The Bible says the evil you do will be punished to the 7th generation. Now, 7 was the metaphorical number of Completion. Whether 7 generations is the actual 7 generations or the metaphorical completion, I don’t know. What I do know is, if great evil was done to you by your father (or uncle or babysitter or whatever), the chance is great that you will do great evil to people beneath you, and the cycle will continue. Also, regardless of what evil was done to you, you are 100 percent responsible for the evil you do, and the generational damage that results. The Old Testament and the New Testament alike declare that no active homosexuals or “transgenders” will be granted admission to Heaven. Likewise, no unrepentant adulterers will be granted admission to Heaven. And no unrepentant pro-abortionists will be granted admission to Heaven.

    The issue is the admission that those are sins, blocking you from Heaven, and your repentance from them. Meaning that you no longer avail yourself of those sins and you no longer support those who do. Many will come, calling Jesus “Lord, Lord” and Jesus will say “Depart from me! I never knew you!” The vast majority of people who call themselves Christians today will be spewed from the mouth of Jesus into Hell, because they are Laodiceans or worse, Baal worshipers.

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  152. Dustin, Jesus indeed called us to judge. Read it. Learn it.

    https://truthbeforedishonor.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/the-bible-says-dont-judge-right/

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  153. I know from experience there is no reaching you.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  154. Dustin, I know from experience you are more reachable than many here. Seriously, read that article I gave you. Everyone should.

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  155. It is well-researched.

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  156. Google announced on Monday that it would no longer allow bail bond companies to buy advertisements on its ad platforms.

    The company explained its decision was based on research showing that “for-profit bail bond providers make most of their revenue from communities of color and low-income neighborhoods when they are at their most vulnerable.”

    Mr. nk pls to explain

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  157. Off topic (somewhat). I just read this article by McCarthy about the two pending indictments in Virginia and DC. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/robert-mueller-tough-week-court-manafort/

    It says that the prosecution is seeking a delay in the DC case because they need to serve the summons on the defendant who appeared.

    My reaction: huh?

    In a civil case, a defendant can appear and waive service. Service is to give the defendant notice of what is claimed against him/her/it. But if someone want to get the complaint somehow (they are all filed on a govt website named PACER) and appear without service, then who cares? The defendant can do that. They just say, I got the complaint, let’s cut to the chase, I am filing my answer and proceeding.

    So why does that not work in a criminal case?

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  158. The focus on a certain sexual sin, is made clear, but we are all sinners, by the standard Jesus put forth. Greed idolatry deceit it aAl.Thus culture enjoins us to do evil actively.

    narciso (d1f714)

  159. Seeing as black people (being part of the 70 percent fatherless crowd) and poor people (being part of the supermajority fatherless crowd) are the most likely to commit crimes and need bail bondsmen, they are the most likely to avail themselves of bail bondsmen. But Google won’t admit that. Instead, they pretend to be honorable by denying the criminal element their ability to learn about people who can help them out.

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  160. yeah i don’t get it

    google profits off communities of color too you know

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  161. Yes, culture, created by Man’s fallen sinful nature, calls us to do evil. Culture also calls us to call some evil “good” while fighting other evil. Culture also calls us to call some good “evil” and to actively fight it. The most glaring examples of devious evil are those who call for a false “two choices” dilemma, where both choices are in and of themselves evil. Like being glowing worshipers of Trump or else backdoor supporters of Clinton, both of whom are evil.

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  162. The events of 2008, revealed through the disclosure of the Jones memo, that Mccain was an active party too, tells everything you need know about him.

    The fact that Mccain has been in business with serge Milan (source d) employed klimnik at the international republican institute, worked with akmetshin in Kazakhstan shows the fraud that this snipe hunt is about.

    narciso (d1f714)

  163. very nice to see you Mr. narciso

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  164. I have no illusions about trump, but I’m not going to believe unsupported allegations either, like those from flint associate avenatti, its like believing cozy shearer, about the color of the sky on a given day.

    narciso (d1f714)

  165. Backdoor Clinton supporter. Sounds like evil on steroids.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  166. so Eric Schneiderman’s kind of a rapist huh

    this is problematic

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  167. I do appreciate the reprieve, I was wrong to assume certain motives to you,

    Mccarthy is finally at the point, when he realized this Ali Mohammed character was not coming back to the states.

    narciso (d1f714)

  168. Yay, narciso!!

    Colonel Haiku (45621b)

  169. This blog just doesn’t seem like this blog without narciso. Really I guess it wouldn’t seem right without Happyfeet even if I think he’s satirical.

    Dustin (ba94b2)

  170. So firtashs* atty, that would be lanny davis, manages to prevent an extradition from Vienna, he looks down on Rudy guiliani.

    Podesta mishandles the money manafort provided to lobby democrats to buy art, he doesn’t get indicted neither does Von weber.

    narciso (d1f714)

  171. I haven’t been around much today, but I think it’s only fair for me to mention what does bother me about the redactions: and that’s the uncertainty.

    It’s also a sentiment that Patterico echoed in the OP. And the only thing that I can add to what Pat said is, it does not necessarily follow that the redacted information was ever classified. That’s not the only reason to redact something; the Department of Justice and the FBI redact the products of FOIA requests all the time when mundane details are germaine to an ongoing investigation. That doesn’t mean the information is classified; it’s an executive decision made by bureaucrats.

    Am I uneasy about this given what I know of proven tendancies of Trump and other politicians (but I repeat myself)? Yeah. But it’s the not knowing that really kills me.

    Gryph (08c844)

  172. “Backdoor Clinton supporter. Sounds like evil on steroids”

    Sounds kinda ghey. Can they still eat more chicken any man ever seen?

    Colonel Haiku (45621b)

  173. thank you Mr. Dustin

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  174. They reacted so much of this document, including links to already published articles, the sourcing for this intelligence estimate, it makes the conclusions very dubious.

    narciso (d1f714)

  175. 177. That’s kind of the point, isn’t it? I’m pretty sure given my own personal experience with FOIA redactions that the whole point of some redaction is to make the documents themselves useless.

    Gryph (08c844)

  176. Thanks everyone, re the story handed to borgner and farrow, its too convenient for it not to have come from either fusion, whose founder has strong pro Iranian ties or haklyut, the outfit downer was connected to.

    narciso (d1f714)

  177. Yes, but we see how the redactions were directed to make establishing the veracity of this snipehunt impossible.

    narciso (d1f714)

  178. The novelist Salman Rushdie, who dated Manning Barish before Schneiderman did, and who has been her close friend for nearly fifteen years, says that she confided in him as well. “She called me and told me he had hit her,” Rushdie recalls. “She was obviously very upset. I was horrified.” In his view, Schneiderman’s behavior does not fall into the kind of gray area that should remain private. “It was clear to me that it crossed a line,” he says. Rushdie, who describes Manning Barish as “a very truthful person in my experience,” advised her to stay away from Schneiderman.

    Mr. Rushdie’s speaking truth to power

    rape is wrong, Eric

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  179. Wha, yeah!, c’mon, yeah, yeah, c’mon, yeah
    Yeah, c’mon, oh, yeah, ma
    Yeah, he’s a back door man, he’s a back door man
    The men don’t know, but that john hitchcock understand
    Hey, all you people that tryin’ to sleep
    He out to make it with his biblical dream, yeah
    ’cause he’s a back door man, the men don’t know
    But that john hitchcock understand, all right, yeah
    You men eat your dinner, eat your pinikpikan
    He eat more balut, any man ever stand, yeah, yeah
    He’s a back door man, wha, the men don’t know
    But that john hitchcock understand
    Well, he’s a back door man
    He’s a back door man
    Whoa, baby, he’s a back door man
    Teh men don’t know
    But that john hitchcock understand

    Colonel Haiku (45621b)

  180. 180. So Someone has something to hide. Or we could at least reasonably think so.

    Gryph (08c844)

  181. So who will arrest the atty general and read him his rights or should they have just tried to bankrupt him, like he did to the competitive enterprise institute.

    narciso (d1f714)

  182. So this investigation, came out of misrepresenting memos re an interview concerning an inquiry, resulting from a fisa warrant, based on an dossier derived from Russian assets played by a political campaign cutout.

    narciso (d1f714)

  183. 185. Republican Deep-Staters + Democrats = The enemy of my enemy is my friend

    Gryph (08c844)

  184. But say Phillip age released the name of Richard Welch, precisely because he hadn’t been involved with the colonels, he subsequently leaked the names of avrokotos. Who was their handler.

    narciso (d1f714)

  185. Other example were the 28 pages, or the company status of Edwin Wilson which was hidden from the court for 20 years.

    narciso (d1f714)

  186. Other areas of interest, amazon is apparently relying on the splc, to vet their charities.

    narciso (d1f714)

  187. 180. So Someone has something to hide. Or we could at least reasonably think so.

    Who do the redactions protect?

    Colonel Haiku (45621b)

  188. And the dig trainer has a hot tale about the nras new president. Someone who understands lawfare all told well

    narciso (d1f714)

  189. drink your bourbon, Turnip

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  190. “When you support 70 percent evil over 97 percent evil, … you are supporting Satan.”

    What is the smallest percent evil I can support without supporting Satan?
    The answer is 0%, is it not?
    But all men are sinners; all are > 0% evil.
    So no men may be supported without supporting Satan.

    Not trying to be snarky. I was asking about sin ranking the other day.

    “Democrat vs Republican,” “CultMarx vs Alt-Right,” “Progressive vs Conservative,” all those political things are the “things of this world,” aren’t they? They are insignificant compared to the glory of God’s kingdom. Aren’t we to disregard or deprioritize those, and love God always?

    gp (0c542c)

  191. 190. That’s just it. It’s hard to tell who those redactions protect; and that might be by design. But this kind of behavior is absolutely NOT unique to the Trump administration. This is how the government operates, and has done so going back to Woodrow Wilson and “The Great War.”

    Gryph (08c844)

  192. 195… “hard to tell”… Yes, I suppose if you have reading comprehension problems, it could be.

    Colonel Haiku (45621b)

  193. To love the Almighty is to reject abortion, homosexuality, any form of marriage other than the “One man plus one woman” the Almighty declared, the economics of envy the Democrats have used since FDR and all Socialists use, the anti-Semitism the Democrats and the alt-Right use, and more. And to declare oneself one of the greatest Christians is to prove that one doesn’t even know the first thing about what it takes to be a Christian.

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  194. Yet we are expected to sanction a withhunt based on so little actual evidence, if Mueller had actual evidence that general fLynn had been a party to renditioning gulen who has very influential supporters you think he would hesitate to prosecute?

    narciso (d1f714)

  195. The company explained its decision was based on research showing that “for-profit bail bond providers make most of their revenue from communities of color and low-income neighborhoods when they are at their most vulnerable.”

    Mr. nk pls to explain

    Google doesn’t think that n-words and poor white trash that have been charged with crimes should be walking around free on bail before they’re sentenced the the Big House?

    There’s a non-refundable fee for a bail bond. It can be as high as 10% through a private bail bondsman. So Bill Cosby with his $1 million bail could be out $100,000, and Paul Manafort whose bail is $11 million could be out $1.1 million. (Just illustrating, I don’t know their actual arrangements.) Remember, though, that the bail bond companies will be on the hook for the whole amount, $1 million for Cosby and $11 million for Manafort should they skip.

    In Cook County, the non-refundable fee is 1%, if you post your bond in cash with the Clerk of the Circuit Court. So Bill Cosby with a $1 million bail would post $100,000 in cash and get back $90,000, win or lose, as long as he showed up in court. He’d only be out $10,000. That’s a much better deal, so if you’re thinking of being arrested for a crime, do it in Cook County and get your bond from the Clerk of the Circuit Court.

    nk (dbc370)

  196. got it

    so this is just some vapid googletwat screaming into the wind

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  197. Sadly antisemitism has been all too often a factor in clerical regimes like those of the interwar and during world war 2, as Michael burleigh informs us, Hitler’s pope was a great slander, that doesn’t mean pus did not show extreme forbearance with Franco or horthy or salazar.

    narciso (d1f714)

  198. speaking of vapid twats

    Palestinians have expressed outrage at teams from the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain for taking part in the opening legs of the Giro d’Italia cycling race in Israel over the weekend, which they say undermined Arab solidarity with their cause.

    depraved and picayune is no way to go through life probably the best case scenario for these animals

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  199. They do evil, pikachu, in russia, china, turkey, perhaps not as perniciously as hollerith, (ibm’s partner in Nazi Germany) did but enough.

    narciso (d1f714)

  200. Eric Schneiderman: if a guy is preachy, splashy, trying to make a name for himself no matter who or what stands in his way, 9 times out of 10, he’s a depraved individual .

    BTW…great prediction by Trump about Schneiderman’s future way back in 2013.

    Colonel Haiku (45621b)

  201. Which probably Mueller will be subpoenaing officials from Bahrain any day now, yes I’ve learned to be that cynical.

    narciso (d1f714)

  202. Meanwhile the awan bros only face process crimes

    https://mobile.twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/993609702566227971?p=v

    narciso (d1f714)

  203. I know sodomy, adultery etc are condemned. But is it not true that all a sodomite has to do is believe in Christ to be saved? Any sinner who comes to the Lord is saved. Does that salvation get cancelled if the sinner then repeats the sin? Can any mortal, after having come to Christ, successfully resist sin thereafter?

    If Trump says something like “I am one of the greatest Christians,” we all know he is exaggerating, bearing false witness. If I thought he really believed that he was an exemplary Christian, that would be something I might worry about a bit. I doubt that he believes his own baloney.

    And all politicians lie. So how can we even engage in politics if we must shun evil? Politics is of “this world,” and the “ruler of this world” (who I take to be Satan) delights when we think about his stuff instead of the glory of God.

    Been trying a long time to figure this stuff out.

    gp (0c542c)

  204. shipwreckedcrew, I get it. Judge Friedrich found the SC’s expressed concerns chimerical and over-legalistic.

    nk (dbc370)

  205. I think opinions don’t fall into that category:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/BillGertz/status/970538694372478976?p=v

    What is striking is the substance if the leak was mostly wrong.

    narciso (d1f714)

  206. 196. All right, Colonel, Sir. Who do YOU think has something to hide based on the information that was redacted in these documents? Note that I have levelled absolutely NO accusations, though I could certainly point out any number of interested parties who would benefit by the redaction of some or all of this information.

    Gryph (08c844)

  207. Its a tricky issue, for good works do not save neither does baptism, but they are signs of a regenerated heart,

    narciso (d1f714)

  208. 204. Preachy? Splashy? Out to make a name for himself? Don’t all three of those qualities apply to Donald J. Trump?

    Gryph (08c844)

  209. One guy who seemed to fit the bill for an exemplary Christian would be John the Baptist. A wildman in the wilderness, dressing and eating most modestly, completely disengaged from the things of this world (until the evil world seized and killed him,) and most importantly, with God topmost always in his mind. That’s a hard row to hoe. A guy like that is never going to win a political primary.

    gp (0c542c)

  210. “An experienced federal judge has confirmed what I have been arguing for months, namely, that the modus operandi of special counsel Robert Mueller is to charge associates of Donald Trump with any crime he can find in order to squeeze them into turning against the president.

    This is what Judge T.S. Ellis III said at a hearing Friday: “You don’t really care about Mr. Manafort’s bank fraud … What you really care about is what information Mr. Manafort could give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment.

    This tactic is as old as Adam turning against Eve. But, as the judge correctly pointed out, it risks the possibility that the squeezed witness will not only sing, he will compose. Here is what Ellis said about that: “This vernacular is to ‘sing,’ is what prosecutors use. What you got to be careful of is, they may not only sing, they may compose.”

    http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/386508-federal-judge-rightly-rebukes-mueller-for-questionable-tactics

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  211. All the persons referred to in the ig report, comey mccabe rybicki baker ohr strzok page prietap (although he may be a source) laufman (even though he may have been more equivocal)

    narciso (d1f714)

  212. If Trump says something like “I am one of the greatest Christians,” we all know he is exaggerating, bearing false witness.

    Exaggerating and bearing false witness are not the same thing. Bearing false witness is NOT synonymous with lying. It is literally to lie against someone else. If I say I saw you commit murder (when I saw no such thing), that’s bearing false witness. If I say I have the most spectacular car ever owned by a mere mortal, that exaggerating. Very different sins.

    Anon Y. Mous (6cc438)

  213. GP, 1 Corinthans 6 has your answer:

    9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

    You cannot repent and be a servant of Jesus and be an active homosexual at the same time. The one precludes the other.

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  214. “Exaggerating and bearing false witness are not the same thing.” I stand corrected.

    gp (0c542c)

  215. @98 – Beldar – I fully agree that it’s a Hail Mary play to convene an Article V convention. My judgement is it is all we have left absent violence, really. I believe Ted would be an excellent shepherd in forming/creating and running such a gathering. You are quite correct that it is up to the several states to demand such a convention. And yes, maybe it would be best for Ted to stay out of it publicly while the good guys are trying to get such a mandate.

    Ed from SFV (291f4c)

  216. Yes, but as stated before that is just one offense, now the sjw sacraments of prog suitability is what schneiderman specializes in.

    narciso (d1f714)

  217. that was fast

    Admiral Cuomo threw our rapist friend Eric under the bus already

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  218. “11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” Doesn’t that mean that these sodomites and thieves have been saved?

    Where do the scriptures say that salvation is then conditional upon never sinning again? That’s the logical step I’m looking for. When one accepts Jesus, is he given the superhuman ability to forever resist sin? Or does he lose his salvation when he messes up again? If he loses it, can he regain it by simply recommitting to Christ and trying harder next time?

    We know Jesus told the adulteress not to sin again, but we don’t know if she was able to do that.

    (JH, please know that I agree with you that sodomy is clearly a sin as shown by scripture. That’s not the bone I’m picking. On my sin scale, teaching sodomy to little kids is pretty serious, and it seems to be the current cultural imperative in America today.)

    gp (0c542c)

  219. Rapist? I read the article. Schneiderman gave a couple cheap floozies crawling into bed with a guy they weren’t married to some mild swats with his bare hand. Probably caught them going riffling his wallet, is my guess.

    nk (dbc370)

  220. GP Repentence has a definite meaning. Continuing a life of homosexuality means, by definition, not repenting from it. You cannot repent from a thing and continue a life of that thing. And you cannot be a Christian and say homosexuality is okay to do. They are mutually exclusive. I understand falling into sin through temptation. But a lifestyle and a continuing body of work are evidentiary proof that repentance was not involved.

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  221. As I say, grace is supposed to make you not want the things of this world, but we are still sinners, its a very thin tightrope,

    narciso (d1f714)

  222. Westboro Baptists were leftist democrat lawyers, the Triple Crown of devil worshippers.

    Pinandpuller (d62558)

  223. Yes, they are the the lawyer who prompts the good samaritan parable, interesting how those two provinces judea and samaria are what constitute the ‘occupied territories’

    narciso (d1f714)

  224. Pinandpuller, Westboro were cultists. But the Bible does say what the Bible says. You cannot be a practicing homosexual or a serial adulterer and be a Christian at the same time.

    Paul, arguably one of the greatest Christians of all time, considered himself one of the lowest. The man who currently claims to be one of the greatest Christians ever, Donald Trump, doesn’t know the first thing about how to become a Christian, and isn’t one. His body of work, up to and including now, is proof against him. And yes, Christians ARE called to judge; especially to judge those who claim to be Christians.

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  225. narciso, I almost didn’t notice you were back. You got a new keyboard, didn’t you?

    nk (dbc370)

  226. “Continuing a life of homosexuality [or any sin may I add] means, by definition, not repenting from it.”

    Salvation requires loving God thru Christ … PLUS repentance? I think the Lord would like us to repent, but is it _mandatory_ for salvation?

    One definition of repent is “to turn from sin and dedicate oneself to the amendment of one’s life.” Is it possible _successfully_ to turn from sin? I don’t see how, no matter how hard I want to. I’ve dedicated myself to things and failed.

    Other definitions of repentance are about regret. Even the unsaved have regrets, especially about sinful impulses they cannot control. Regret is easy.

    gp (0c542c)

  227. Recall. Though, saul of tarsus had agitated not only his pharisees but other Jews Romans Greeks the emerging Christians (Taylor caldwells novel set the scene,) the film with James faulkner and caviezel tries to flesh out his last days as he explains to centurion olivier martinez

    narciso (d1f714)

  228. Romans 8:1-2
    Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.

    God may still want to have a very serious conversation with me about the consequences behaviors can bring about when I’ve chosen to go out away from the life of freedom from the law, but the voice of condemnation is from hell not heaven.

    Oh.. thank goodness Jesus gets to decide who gets to heaven. I think the parable where Jesus describes a landowner paying all the laborers the same wage whether they worked all day or only the last hour lets us know a lot about how little we know

    steveg (a9dcab)

  229. Yes, repentence is indeed MANDATORY for salvation. Without repentence, there is no salvation.

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  230. So what is the standard for a secular ruler, w was mocked for his conversion, this bizarre coinage of ‘dry drunk’ that Pete singer and other tagged on him.

    narciso (d1f714)

  231. “saul of tarsus had agitated not only his pharisees but other Jews Romans Greeks the emerging Christians ” That’s one of the coolest things about Paul: he p!ssed off everybody! His writing is so direct and provocative.

    gp (0c542c)

  232. Yes but then again, the question of recurrance of certain behavior, Paul was strong willed but even he admitted ‘what I don’t want to do, I do what I want to do i do not’

    narciso (d1f714)

  233. In First Corinthians, Paul told the Corinthian Church to throw out the evil man, and had a very dire prediction for his resultant eternity. In Second Corinthians, Paul told the Corinthian Church to accept the repentant man back into the fold.

    Yes, Paul said to judge people who claimed to be Christian. The other Apostles did, too. Jesus Himself did, as well. And the Old Testament (don’t you DARE throw the Old Testament out) is replete with commands to judge and examples of righteous judging.

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  234. Then there is second thessalonians, which are rarely read in lieu of Daniel and revelation, one theory is the reference is to a religious bit political leader as commonly thought.

    narciso (d1f714)

  235. rapey eric resigned

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  236. I see a pretty good outline about this stuff at gotquestions dot org slash repentance dot html.
    Lots of things I need to study.

    Thanks folks!

    gp (0c542c)

  237. He dissapeared like peter quill, yes that was nit thexswiftest move possible.

    Getting back to the ostensible subject of the thread, the investigation was indeed very bogus. From start to finish.

    narciso (d1f714)

  238. 230
    The Hebrew word for repentance literally means return, in this case return to God. IIRC the Greek term has a similar meaning. So if you repent you are moving towards God and away from sinful acts. And since we can always strengthen our focus on God, we should always be engaged in repentance, no matter how sinfree our life is.

    Kishnevi (15a549)

  239. GP, let me give you an example of family life that can be understood in the Philippines.

    Child A walks into the house and says “I love you, dad” and walks into the bedroom for all the children. As he’s walking into the bedroom for all the children, the father says “I need you to sweep up the outside”. Child A then exits the bedroom and heads on down to the karaoke club.

    Child B walks into the house and says “I love you, dad” and walks into the bedroom for all the children. As he’s walking into the bedroom for all the children, the father says “I need you to wash the clothes.” Child B then exits the bedroom and heads on down to the dance club.

    Child C walks into the house and says “I love you, dad” and walks into the bedroom for all the children. As he’s walking into the bedroom for all the children, the father says “I need you to cook supper for the family.” Child C walks out of the bedroom, lets the father know that he was heard and will be obeyed, then proceeds to cook supper.

    Which of the three, while professing a love for their father, actually loved their father?

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed)

  240. Bye-bye Schneiderman.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  241. @221. Beware the ‘New Nixon’ Mr. Feet. No five o’clock shadow, but shaved legs.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  242. Of course there MIGHT be some strange justification for the redaction of (at least mildly) exculpatory evidence for Flynn. But sans other evidence, the reasonable betting Bayesian estimate is that they redacted it because it made them look (at least somewhat) bad and helped Flynn.

    Given this sort of behavior, I completely understand why the recent judge told Mueller that he would not accept assertions without evidence and told them to show him an unredacted scope for his investigation. Really, there has been a long pattern of not disclosing relevant information.

    The biggie was how the Trump dossier was paid for by the Clinton campaign. That should have been front and center. It was hidden for much too long. Comey was deceptive and evasive when asked on this. A sea lawyer, not an “ethics professor”. At the Naval Academy, they would boot him for Clintonian equivocation. It is the “intent to deceive” that hangs you on the hooks, not some careful wordsmanship.

    Anonymous (d41cee)

  243. Man, the Democrats are sucking up to The Matriarchy in a big way, lately. And no Jews sticking up for their landsmen either?

    Meantime, Greitens is going to get McCaskill re-elected in Missouri and Blankenship Manchin in West Virginia.

    nk (dbc370)

  244. “inconsistent with our understanding” Our understanding being whatever we need it to be. This is the FBI, not some band of archangels or something.

    Richard Aubrey (dbc9be)

  245. Well there is a case where the evidence is lacking but the white toga crowd is curling

    narciso (d1f714)

  246. cocaine mitch and his corrupt piggy wife aren’t in much of a position to help this year cause everyone hates their corrupt nasty guts

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  247. If Republicans stay home, vote Republican, how do Blankenship and Greitens lose? If a segment of the right decides attacking fellow Republicans is somehow in their best interest then there is a good chance the right gives away seats again. McCain and Romney were terrible candidates, the “far right” never tried to tare them down like the center right has tried to destroy Trump and Tea Party candidates.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  248. dirty Jeff Flake who raised despicably racist children is already campaigning for the democrat in West Virginia

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  249. “Bye-bye Schneiderman.”

    — –

    Donald J Trump
    @realdonaldtrump
    Weiner is gone, Spitzer is gone – next will be lightweight A.G. Eric Schneiderman. Is he a crook? Wait and see, worse than Spitzer or Weiner
    Sep 11, 2013

    harkin (c60926)

  250. 244 once again Trump lied, in his 2013 treat he said the ag would be next, 5 years isn’t next! /s

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  251. Another thing that bothered me about Comey. When he was testifying to Congress, he was asked about why he did not inform the oversight committee that he was doing a sensitive investigation. He replied that someone under him made the decision. Makes no sense. Even if someone under him made the initial decision, if this was such a high profile matter that it had to be kept secret from oversight, he has to take responsibility. He had to know what was going on and would have countermanded the decision if he disagreed. Just the tendency to try to dance away…shows me an equivocator. This is the opposite of “ethics professor”. It’s the opposite of “I chopped down the cherry tree”. It’s the opposite of “I threw your palm tree over the side and what’s this no liberty?”

    Sorry if this has all been discussed to death, but I just started reading the blog again after many years away.

    Anonymous (ea5569)

  252. Blankenship went to prison for poisoning people’s water, for crying out loud! Greitens is just a slimeball and that’s not a crime but he’s sliming the whole GOP in Missouri which had, emphasis on “had”, a chance to finally throw out Svetlana.

    nk (dbc370)

  253. welcome back Mr. Anonymous you need a better name though

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  254. specifically Greitens is a Navy SEAL slimeball

    that whole little unit isn’t exactly covering itself with glory lately

    but why should they be different from the rest of our joke Navy

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  255. The Navy’s not perfect, but it’s not a joke either. It’s hard to explain. You had to be there.

    Anonymous (ea5569)

  256. Well the atty general who is running for the senate, has decided to wear the white toga, and take the allegations as granted. Yes that was a lawsuit that was settled prior to his arraignment or something, but papa mylan always catches the breaks

    narciso (d1f714)

  257. Under the plan, Mr. Schneiderman, a Democrat, seeks to exempt New York’s double jeopardy law from cases involving presidential pardons, according to the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times. The current law and the concept of double jeopardy in general mean that a person cannot be tried for the same crime twice.

    Right now, New York state law prevents people from being prosecuted more than once for crimes related to the same act, even if the original prosecution was in federal court. There are already a number of exceptions to the law, and the letter says that Mr. Schneiderman is proposing to add a new one that could be used if federal pardons are issued.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  258. Pikachu, in order to satisfy the blood thirsty cannibals in. Marketing says these ridiculous things

    narciso (d1f714)

  259. It used to be awesome but now the whole military is messed up and corrupt squalid, and I do not respect it Mr. Anonymous.

    Like so many other American institutions the US Military has squandered their respectability.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  260. oh. i meant to say corrupt squalid cringe-worthy

    shoot i screwed that up

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  261. 256, Greitens is not being helped by the MO R establisment because hes not a good ol boy/Blunt and he is (was) central casting of a hypothetical Trump primary challenger.

    urbanleftbehind (24e2ff)

  262. Speaking of evil is it not clear Claire bear is some demonic spawn, possibly in ambassador kislyak pay.

    narciso (d1f714)

  263. Ollie North was the Michael Flynn of the 80s

    urbanleftbehind (24e2ff)

  264. Is it not more reasonable urban that just like in macho grande the party establishment Isnt really agitated about Claire bear, akin was the scion of a steel dynasty a private school educated engineer and IBM exec, but he was a born again Christian,

    narciso (d1f714)

  265. poor Mr. Akin he ruint himself

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  266. There are some similarities, the difference is he wasnt allowed to defend himself,

    narciso (d1f714)

  267. similarities between adultery SEAL and Mr. Akin?

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  268. totally different

    the adultery SEAL’s being lawfared up on by a corrupt soros-funded attorney general

    Mr. Akin was just a very very stupid man what had been steeped in Lila Rose theology to where he wasn’t fit for regular human society anymore

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  269. oh oh oh

    you were doing the Ollie North Mike Flynn thing

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  270. With the new head of the nra and general fLynn , the common similarity is like with peter quill letting thanes get away and wiping out half the universe.

    The deems quietly knife you like they did. Bernie and then bandage you up.

    narciso (d1f714)

  271. I have a nephew who is a Navy SEAL stationed overseas. No, not the nephew who is a paratrooper, another one. He is a good boy from a good family, and he might even be a paratrooper too but he hasn’t old me because his training is classified.

    nk (dbc370)

  272. Does he have tattoos? That’s a red flag you know

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  273. My brother is a paratrooper too. Are the letters from ft. Knox or Columbus Ga or Fayetteville that would be a clue,

    narciso (d1f714)

  274. Anonymous, you may want to pick a different screen name. There’s another commenter who goes by Anon.y.mouse, so confusion can easily ensue

    Kishnevi (15a549)

  275. 256 doesn’t this sound familiar under the Obama administration? How many times would this make if he’s being accurate?

    “While in prison, Blankenship described himself as a “political prisoner.” In Monday’s statement, he predicted more information about his criminal trial will be forthcoming over the next few months to demonstrate his innocence. He argued “a large quantity of documents were withheld by the prosecutors that they were required to turn over” to his attorneys.”

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  276. No, neither one has tattoos. I think I’m the only one in the family with a tattoo. And it’s a small one.

    nk (dbc370)

  277. “D’Souza moved unsuccessfully to challenge the charges on the basis of selective prosecution, but U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said in a statement Tuesday that the case was handled without any political bias.

    “We will investigate and prosecute violations of federal law, particularly those that undermine the integrity of the democratic electoral process, without regard to the defendant’s political persuasion or party affiliation. That is what we did in this case and what we will continue to do,” Bharara said.”

    Does anyone think Rosie will be charged? Two sets of laws right now to go with the two sets of standards.

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  278. good good good there’s hope yet Mr. nk

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  279. No, Rosie will not be charged. She probably will not even be fined by the FEC. She did nothing that shows criminal intent. Moreover, the campaigns that she overgave to will likely not even have to return the overdonation. Just reallocate it to a future campaign.

    D’Souza actively tried to conceal his overdonation by making it in other people’s names. Basically money laundering. Same law, same standards, different facts.

    nk (dbc370)

  280. She did nothing that shows criminal intent.

    she changed her name and address for each donation

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  281. Says who? Alex Jones?

    The information about her donations is from the campaigns themselves who have the amounts, excessive as they are, listed under her name.

    nk (dbc370)

  282. honestly i haven’t followed this super-close

    i’m perfectly happy with campaign finance laws being a joke

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  283. I’m not going to pretend I’m God and judge others, and I think those who try to do this are hurting themselves. My sincere advice to you is to not worry about this stuff. Jesus did not command you to judge one another. He commanded you to love one another. I fall way short of that all the time, but I try.

    Amen.

    I think that command was in a recent gospel, was it not?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  284. This blog just doesn’t seem like this blog without narciso. Really I guess it wouldn’t seem right without Happyfeet even if I think he’s satirical.

    He’s back.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  285. Beldar — I didn’t gripe one time in moderation.

    Well, maybe one time:

    Hahaha – banned me before I could start taking this tripe apart.

    You should check out Little Green Footballs these days.

    Others have blazed the trail ahead for you.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)
    Submitted on 2018/04/07 at 1:17 pm

    But in fairness, that was right after you were given your vacation. (Not “banned.”)

    Patterico (115b1f)

  286. 285 why would you think it came from Alex Jones?

    It was widely reported by conservative sites. From the Nypost;

    “Filings show O’Donnell gave a combined $5,400 in contributions over the limit to the five candidates, and used five different New York addresses and four variations of her name.”

    Nate Ogden (223c65)

  287. That’s New York Post style “reporting”. If she used the “five different New York addresses and four variations of her name” to give an overage to one candidate, then you can infer nefarious intent. But the Post does not say that.

    nk (dbc370)

  288. NO!
    Next question.

    askeptic (8d10f9)

  289. 139 — from the broadcast, i was laughing about Burr having had dinner with the judge during the trial — who happened to be the SCOTUS Chief Justice John Marshall, who was out riding the circuit in the area where the trial took place.

    And after the was acquitted, Burr had dinner with Pres. Jefferson who had directed the prosecution effort via correspondence while the case was underway.

    LOL.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 5/7/2018 @ 3:40 pm

    They talked about their grand kids.

    Pinandpuller (44cac0)

  290. One guy who seemed to fit the bill for an exemplary Christian would be John the Baptist. A wildman in the wilderness, dressing and eating most modestly, completely disengaged from the things of this world (until the evil world seized and killed him,) and most importantly, with God topmost always in his mind. That’s a hard row to hoe. A guy like that is never going to win a political primary.

    gp (0c542c) — 5/7/2018 @ 5:53 pm

    John the Baptist was also a Nazirite

    Pinandpuller (44cac0)

  291. Which of the three, while professing a love for their father, actually loved their father?

    John Hitchcock (05d3ed) — 5/7/2018 @ 7:05 pm

    So it is true: Filipinos are absolutely crazy about karaoke.

    Pinandpuller (44cac0)

  292. I think I’m the only one in the family with a tattoo. And it’s a small one.

    nk (dbc370) — 5/7/2018 @ 8:09 pm

    I guess you aren’t going to heaven either.

    Pinandpuller (44cac0)

  293. While contemplating Heaven and Hell why not check out Nemesis by HP Lovecraft set to Piano Man on a bloody bouzouki? Link

    Pinandpuller (44cac0)

  294. OMG YouTube is anti-Semitic. They have Fiddler on the Roof Cthulhu parodies, ok. But when I clicked on a real song from the real musical a Red Lobster Shrimp Fest commercial went off.

    A Shoggoth on the Roof-If I Were a Deep One

    Pinandpuller (44cac0)

  295. Haiku, 143: laugh. Nah, that wouldn’t work. Those drugs are beyond my capacity to tangle with, and I have a binding commitment not to except under particular circumstances which do not exist. And even if those circumstances were to exist and I were to feel competent to the challenge, that would not be the right environment.

    aphrael (2dbed4)

  296. 301… you laugh, but the spirit of Gram Parsons lives on in the California desert…

    Colonel Haiku (45621b)

  297. 299… that’s a great tune PandP!

    Colonel Haiku (45621b)

  298. 283 — nk is correct. O’Donnell seems to have just written checks for amounts more than the individual limits, and while its a violation, that kind of thing is not ordinarily treated as a crime.

    What D’Souza did is different — he engaged in “straw man” donors, where he had other people write checks to candidates, and he then reimbursed them for their contributions. That’s a “red flag” no-no. That is construed as an active effort to conceal the violation of the limits.

    That’s the kind of violation that, if not discouraged, could make a mockery of the individual limits. That kind of violation has been prosecuted many times over years since individual limits on contributions were passed into law.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  299. 289 — fair enough. I did have a reaction I guess. But I gave a lot of thought to whether I wanted to “fight it out” over the “vacation”, and consciously chose to not do so.

    shipwreckedcrew (56b591)

  300. Like obamas campaign did in 2008, from balmy locals like the west bank.

    narciso (d1f714)

  301. 304. shipwreckedcrew (56b591) — 5/8/2018 @ 7:28 am

    What D’Souza did is different — he engaged in “straw man” donors, where he had other people write checks to candidates, and he then reimbursed them for their contributions. That’s a “red flag” no-no.

    That is correct, except that:

    1) There was nothing D’Souza gained by violating the law – and the contributions were not so great,

    2) If D’Souza had wanbted to do more to help Wendy Long get elected, he could ahve simply made some independent expenditures on his own: Buy some newspaper or radio ads.

    It was a violation of black letter law but it wasn’t of any great significance.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  302. 291. nk (dbc370) — 5/7/2018 @ 10:14 pm

    If she used the “five different New York addresses and four variations of her name” to give an overage to one candidate, then you can infer nefarious intent. But the Post does not say that.

    It might be the campaigns had systems in place to prevent too high contributions.

    Unless she always varies the spelling of her name, and uses different addresses, depending on how she feels that day.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  303. So, if the original redactions were justified (by some tortured secret rationale that escapes us), what is the justification for NOW SHOWING the info? (some even MORE turtured secret rationale?)

    I have to throw the BS flag. They use redactions to avoid embarrassment. That is the reasonable deduction.

    Anonymous (d41cee)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8373 secs.