[guest post by Dana]

Late getting this up due to other obligations. Here’s James Comey’s opening statement.

As Dan McLaughlin notes, there’s both some good news and some bad news for the president. “Comey explodes the Democrats’ narrative that Trump was under criminal investigation for collusion with Russia, and confirms with specificity that Trump was telling the truth when he tweeted that Comey had told him as much on three occasions. The bad news, for Trump, is that Comey also details his mounting concerns about Trump’s heavy-handedness. His discussion of the January 27 dinner, which he interpreted as Trump asking him to audition for staying on as FBI Director, set the tone”…

Much more at the link.

–Dana

[guest post by Dana]

It’s being reported this morning that ISIS has made its first major attack on Iran:

Iran’s revolutionary guard lashed out at Saudi Arabia on Wednesday, hours after 12 people were killed and 42 others were wounded in devastating attacks on two potent symbols in Tehran, the capital: Iran’s Parliament and the mausoleum of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

The Islamic State immediately said it was behind the attacks, the first time that the Sunni Muslim extremist group has claimed responsibility for an assault in Iran, which is predominantly Shiite Muslim. The group, which views Shiite Muslims as apostates, is battling with Iranian-backed forces in Iraq and in Syria.

Tensions in the Middle East were already high; after a visit by President Trump, Saudi Arabia and several Sunni allies led a regional effort on Monday to isolate Qatar, the one Persian Gulf country that maintains relations with Iran.

In a statement, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps faulted both Saudi Arabia and the United States government: “The public opinion of the world, especially Iran, recognizes this terrorist attack — which took place a week after a joint meeting of the U.S. president and the head of one of the region’s backward governments, which constantly supports fundamentalist terrorists — as very significant,” clearly referring to Saudi Arabia. The statement also acknowledged the Islamic State’s claim of responsibility.

Of the 12 victims of the attacks, 11 died at the Parliament building, and one at the mausoleum. In addition, six assailants were killed: four at the Parliament, and two at the mausoleum. Five were men, and one of the mausoleum attackers was a woman.

(On a side note, it is expected that Iran would blame President Trump for the attack, and from reading the entire report, it appears the NYT is eager to push that belief along as well. This even as Iran chants death to America.)

Also, as a result of the attack, Senate Democrats are asking that today’s vote to impose sanctions on Iran’s ballistic missile program and extend terrorism sanctions involving the IRGC be postponed because it would be the kind thing to do:

“Instead of rubbing salt into a wound, just to say let’s wait a few days and consider what to do,” Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., said Wednesday the Senate floor. “If we were in their shoes, I think we would appreciate that gesture.”

“If we were in [Iran’s] shoes, I think the idea of them sort of taking this kind of action or step against us on a day that we’ve been attacked by ISIS would not be well received,” Carper said.

To this lay person, generosity toward Iran seems a bit mind-boggling when one considers it’s Iran we’re talking about. Especially as they are not only chanting their standard refrain of “Death to America,” but are also vowing revenge for the attack, according to Saeed Ghasseminejad’s translation of a statement made by Deputy commander of IRGC intelligence Hossein Nejat’s:

“The Saudis & US had ordered terrorist operation in Tehran” & “IRGC would take revenge on terrorists & those who gave them the order.”

–Dana

Trump announces $100 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia last month. But . . . if this report is to be believed, “There is no $110 billion deal. Instead, there are a bunch of letters of interest or intent, but not contracts. . . . None of the deals identified so far are new, all began in the Obama administration.”

Well, Trump lying is nothing new. Neither is Trump diverting charity money to his own pocket — although doing so at the expense of kids dying from cancer is a new low even for this cretin. The story is complicated and hard to capture in a simple description or single block quote, so consider the quote below to be a teaser rather than a comprehensive summary of the article. Forbes reports:

[T]he Donald J. Trump Foundation, which has come under previous scrutiny for self-dealing and advancing the interests of its namesake rather than those of charity, apparently used the Eric Trump Foundation to funnel $100,000 in donations into revenue for the Trump Organization.

And while donors to the Eric Trump Foundation were told their money was going to help sick kids, more than $500,000 was re-donated to other charities, many of which were connected to Trump family members or interests, including at least four groups that subsequently paid to hold golf tournaments at Trump courses.

All of this seems to defy federal tax rules and state laws that ban self-dealing and misleading donors.

Well, that part is nothing new.

What do you expect Donald Trump to do? Not steal money from kids dying of cancer?

."I like kids who don't get cancer"

— Jeet Heer (@HeerJeet) June 6, 2017

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

This is a press release by the Torrance Police Department from May 30, 2017:

On May 29th, 2017, at approximately 10:35p.m., the Torrance Police Department responded to the 3600 block of Sara Drive regarding a call of suspicious activity. Upon arrival, responding officers heard a female screaming as two male suspects ran from the residence.

One suspect was immediately detained, and the second suspect was later discovered hiding in the victim’s garage approximately 1 ½ hours later during a canine search. Upon arrest, a private citizen appearing to be filming the incident inquired why the suspect was there. The suspect replied, “Prop 57”.

The preliminary investigation reveals both suspects, a 17 year old male and 18 year old male both from Colorado, worked in concert to commit a home invasion robbery, wherein a 73 year old victim was attacked. It was further discovered the suspects were connected to another residential burglary and were driving a vehicle stolen out of Colorado as well.

The victim was transported to a local hospital, and later released with minor injuries. This call for service was initiated by an alert neighbor who immediately called police when they observed suspicious activity in the neighborhood.

Both suspects were found to have warrants from Colorado, the 17 year old has a warrant for murder, and the 18 year old has a warrant for robbery.

The Torrance Police Department continues to encourage its residents to report all suspicious activity, as this can easily save a life –See something Say something.

Sergeant Ronald Harris
Torrance Police Department Public Information Officer
(310) 618-5688
rharris@torranceca.gov

I see something! I see Proposition 57, a poorly conceived ballot measure (written by defense attorneys) that has endangered the public safety.

The benefits of Proposition 57 go beyond attracting violent criminals like the one described above to our state. Thanks to Proposition 57, people facing murder charges in adult court all over Los Angeles County have been returned to juvenile court to see if they should be tried as adults — even though at the time their cases were filed, Deputy D.A.s were legally entitled to file on them in adult court. These “juveniles” (many were adults, some in their 20s, at the time they were returned to juvenile court) often have co-defendants who were adults at the time of the crime, meaning the adult case and the juvenile case get split up. The result is one of two things: either the entire trial is delayed for months while the adult waits for the juvenile, or the adult moves forward in adult court and the case is tried twice, putting witnesses through two trials instead of one.

The proposition doesn’t explicitly say this is what should happen. But at least one court has interpreted the measure that way, and so here we are.

I don’t think the voters realized any of this was going to happen.

I see something, so I am saying something.

{Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]