JustOneMinute

Fret And The World Frets With You...

Fret and the world frets with you; smile and you smile alone. That, at least, is the advice offered to Team Hillarity! by two NY Times columns today. From the left, Frank Bruni:

The Trouble for Hillary

...

That included President Obama, who answered Trump’s shockingly gloomy vision of America with a stirring assurance that we have every reason to feel good. Clinton forcefully amplified that assessment. She peddled uplift, not anxiety.

But in 2016, is that the smarter sell? Are prettier words the better pitch?

Some polls suggest they may not be:

But she nonetheless faces possible troubles, and the potential mismatch of her message and the moment is a biggie. She has to exploit the opportunity of Trump’s excessive bleakness without coming across as the least bit complacent. That’s no easy feat but it’s a necessary one. The numbers don’t lie.

In a Gallup poll two weeks ago, just 17 percent of respondents said that the country was on the right track, while 82 percent said it was on the wrong track. In an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shortly before that, the corresponding figures were 18 percent and 73 percent.

Well, now. In 1992 her devoted hubby ran against twelve years of Bush/Reagan oppression during a weak economic as the Man from Hope. Of course, he also represented a change from the prior regime in a way that Hillary surely does not. The Clinton message in '92, like the Reagan message in '80 or the Trump message today, is that things are bad can can be fixed by a change in leadership. Hard for Hillary to adopt that while also running as Obama's heir.

Ramesh Ponnuru has a guest piece making a similar point:

Why Hillary Should Fear Optimism

...

Instead of reasons for hope, the Democrats offered these voters bromides about optimism: America’s best days are always ahead of it, etc., etc. These bromides came with a liberal spin, the genius of America being defined as its closer and closer approximation of egalitarian ideals. The idea that American patriotism consists of loyalty to a future country clearly speaks to many of our citizens. Will it be enough in an anxious era, when Americans are deeply dissatisfied with their politicians? And when Mr. Trump is offering a more pointed explanation of that dissatisfaction than the Democrats are?

Mr. Ponnuru makes another point also emphasized by regular Times columnist Ross Douthat - Hillary tried to woo Republicans unhappy with Trump by offering them... nothing other than a commitment to be Not Trump. Mr. Ponnuru:

As much as the Democrats of Philadelphia invited Republicans to join them, though, they did little to make themselves attractive to them. The Democrats insist on hurtling to the left on issue after issue.

Pro-lifers are less welcome than ever in the party, which is now more firmly committed not to the maintenance of the status quo on abortion but to the elimination of restrictions on taxpayer funding for abortion that have been in place for decades.

At the Democratic convention four years ago in Charlotte, N.C., Bill Clinton spoke about the federal government’s long-term debt problem. That candor was absent in Philadelphia, where speakers, including Hillary Clinton, talked about expanding Social Security instead of fixing the shortfall it is already projected to have.

...

Some middle-of-the-road voters who find Mr. Trump alarming nonetheless share some of his stated concerns about crime, the Islamic State and immigration. Democrats did little to reassure them that they shared those concerns. They ignored the preliminary evidence that the violent crime rate, while still well below its peak rates, has started to increase again. Mrs. Clinton affirmed our existing strategy against the Islamic State, but her remarks stood out at the convention, where the topic was rarely mentioned, especially by progressive favorites. The Democrats also made it clear that they viewed illegal immigration almost exclusively through the eyes of illegal immigrants themselves: If it has costs, or enforcement of the laws against it has benefits, they weren’t mentioned. You don’t have to think it wise to “deport them all” to find this treatment of the issue cavalier.

And Ross Douthat:

Liberalism’s Big Bet

THE key pivot point in the Democratic convention arrived during President Obama’s speech on Wednesday, when he told the throng of Democrats that Donald Trump’s baleful convention rhetoric “wasn’t particularly Republican — and it sure wasn’t conservative.”

With that olive branch to anti-Trump Republicans, he shifted his party’s convention from the mission of its first two days (shoring up the base, mollifying Berners) to the mission of its grand finale: the appropriation of conservative tropes and themes — God and country, the flag and 9/11, the founding fathers and the Constitution — in the service of symbolic outreach to Republicans and right-leaning independents.

As a gesture, it was immensely powerful. Anyone who came of age with Ronald Reagan found more to recognize in the Democratic Party’s rhetoric last week than in Donald Trump’s self-aggrandizing George Wallace imitation.

But it was also just a gesture. Yes, the convention’s showmanship was strikingly unifying, bipartisan, moderate — but Hillary Clinton’s domestic agenda is not. She’s running as a liberal, full stop, with a platform well to the left of where her party stood five or 10 or 20 years ago.

She’s happy to make right-leaning voters feel a little better about fleeing Trump, but she isn’t offering them substantive concessions, or seeking a grand centrist coalition. Instead she’s telling them: It’s me or Trump, and you know you can’t put the nuclear codes in his undersize hands, so my offer is … nothing.

Abortion, immigration, fiscal sanity - her message was 'go left of go home'.

 

 

 

 

 

If You Are Not Nervous About The Upcoming Election...

If you are not nervous about the impending Presidential election I envy and applaud you.

But for the rest of us (the Trembling Majority?), David Sanger of the Times presents a new concern that should easily crack anyone's Top 100 list of potential electoral disasters. As a disclaimer, I should add that when the White House wants an authoritative, sympathetic source to present their spin on international events they seek out Mr. Sanger. So this article is a lightly-edited press release rather than hard-hitting investigative journalism, but still - it is interesting to know what the Administration wants us to believe. Here we go, on cyberwar and the many complexities of a US response:

U.S. Wrestles With How to Fight Back Against Cyberattacks

ASPEN, Colo. — It has been an open secret throughout the Obama presidency that world powers have escalated their use of cyberpower. But the recent revelations of hacking into Democratic campaign computer systems in an apparent attempt to manipulate the 2016 election is forcing the White House to confront a new question: whether, and if so how, to retaliate.

So far, the administration has stopped short of publicly accusing the Russian government of President Vladimir V. Putin of engineering the theft of research and emails from the Democratic National Committee and hacking into other campaign computer systems. However, private investigators have identified the suspects, and American intelligence agencies have told the White House that they have “high confidence” that the Russian government was responsible.

Less certain is who is behind the selective leaks of the material, and whether they have a clear political objective. Suspecting such meddling is different from proving it with a certainty sufficient for any American president to order a response.

Because Obama is far too calm and reflective, don'cha know? I don't think game theorists recommend extreme predictability as a winning strategy, but I am not a genius like Obama either.

Oh, yeah, Obama is a visionary as well, as per this vignette from 2009:

While setting up his new administration, he was also learning the dark arts of cyberwar, descending into the Situation Room to oversee a complex American-Israeli offensive operation to disable Iran’s nuclear centrifuges. He expressed concern to his aides that the operation would help fuel the escalation of cyberattacks and counterattacks.

Right, because no one else anywhere realized that computer power was more widely available than nuclear power. Whatever. On to the new concern:

At the event in Aspen on Saturday afternoon, Lisa O. Monaco, Mr. Obama’s homeland security adviser, sidestepped specific discussion of the D.N.C. hacking but acknowledged that the administration might soon have to consider whether the United States’ electoral system constitutes “critical infrastructure,” like the power grid or the cellphone network.

“I think it’s a serious question,” she said, especially if there is “coercion, destruction, manipulation of data.” Ms. Monaco noted that whenever the United States thinks about retaliation, “the danger of escalation and misinterpretation is such that we have to be responsible about it.” But she also said that if an event were serious enough, “we have to be very clear we will respond.”

The cost of doing nothing could be high. As the United States and other nations move to more electronic voting systems, the opportunities for mischief rise. Imagine, for example, a vote as close as the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, but with accusations about impossible-to-trace foreign manipulation of the ballots or the vote count, leaving Americans wondering about the validity of the outcome.

Oh, brother. Florida 2000 becomes Florida/Ohio/Pennsylvania 2016? With a 4-4 Supreme Court unable to swing the result to Hillary? And who among us honestly believes that Obama, Lynch and the establishment Republicans running the FBI could investigate an election-tampering scheme and conclude that Hillary was the beneficiary and Trump won the election? Well, never ask a rhetorical question - I am confident that Democrats and establishment Republicans would insist that their investigation was fair and balanced, but in a close election, the half of the voters that went for Trump won't buy it.

Of course, if Russian manipulation secretly swings the election to Hillary this will get as much attention from the DoJ as Lois Lerner of the IRS. And whoever wins, the hint of Russian meddling makes it possible that the losers will not accept the legitimacy of the "winner", leaving our next leader in charge of an even-more divided country.

Our leaders and institutions have lost their credibility and the Russians may be inclined to exploit that. Yike.

MADMAN ACROSS THE WATER: Let me just snip a fair-use excerpt form the Foreign Policy link above:

Madman in the White House

Why looking crazy can be an asset when you’re staring down the Russians.

...

Nixon wanted to impress upon the Soviets that the president of the United States was, in a word, mad: unstable, erratic in his decision-making, and capable of anything. The American commander-in-chief wanted the Kremlin to know that he was willing to escalate even localized conventional military conflicts to the nuclear level. Kissinger understood: "I’ll tell [the Soviets] tomorrow night," he vowed. The national security advisor even rehearsed for the president specific lines from the good cop/bad cop routine he intended to put on. "The more we do now," he would tell his Soviet interlocutor, "the better." He was akin to saying: On the shoulders of reasonable men, like you and me, rests the responsibility of preventing a madman, like Nixon, from taking things too far.

It wasn’t the first time the national security advisor had been exposed to the strategic potential of madness. The concept had originated, amid the nuclear anxieties of the 1950s, in the academic circles Kissinger had formerly inhabited. It was a product of game theory, a mathematic discipline — often applied to national security policymaking — that can be used to assess competitive situations and predict actors’ choices, based on prior actions by their competitors. Kissinger himself had endorsed the concept in his writings, as a professor of international relations at Harvard, a full decade before he came to the White House. "The more reckless we appear [the better]," he told Nixon that afternoon, "because after all, Mr. President, what we’re trying to convince them of is that we are ready to go all the way."

In his post-Watergate memoir The Ends of Power, former White House chief of staff H.R. Haldeman wrote that his boss’s use of the strategy was hardly unconscious. "I call it the Madman Theory," Haldeman recalled the president telling him. "I want the North Vietnamese to believe I’ve reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We’ll just slip the word to them that, ‘for God’s sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about communism. We can’t restrain him when he’s angry — and he has his hand on the nuclear button,’ and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace."

Gun Fun At The Times (Ongoing...)

Eric Lichtblau of the Times reports on a Justice Department study of police officer safety. Naturally part of the study involves officers shot by handguns and rifles, and naturally the Times can't get the facts straight. Here we go, my emphasis:

In the killing of 132 officers beginning in 2010, 14 percent of them were not wearing body armor, according to the study, which was funded by the Justice Department in partnership with the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, a private nonprofit group.

Body armor would not have prevented all of the killings, because about 20 percent of the attackers used rifles, including high-powered models like AR-15s or AK-47s that can penetrate typical armor, researchers found.

The report noted that “the increasing use of high-powered rifles against police” — such as those used in the Dallas and Louisiana attacks — had led some departments to use stronger body armor and ballistic helmets on high-threat calls.

Puzzling - I thought the NY Times style book called for "dreaded AR-15", with "scary AR-15" as an acceptable alternative. Regardless, I won't speak to the AK-47s, but the AR-15 is a firing platform which can be employed for a wide range of ammunition. In fact, when gun controllers are hitting a different set of their talking points, they routinely note that the typical AR-15 is not suitable for any hunting other than small game. Let's go hunting for some background:

The main thing that determines what kind of game you can take with an AR is the size of the round that it’s chambered for. The standard AR-15 is chambered in for .223 Remington or 5.56mm, but many AR makers offer are quite a few different caliber variations, including, but not limited to: 7.62X39, 6.5 Creedmore, 6.8 SPC, .243 .300 Whisper, .50 Beowulf, .458 SOCOM and more. You can even find AR-15s chambered in common handgun calibers such at 9mm, .40S&W and .45ACP to name a few.

That said, unless my eyes deceive me (they might!) even a .223 rifle round is going to be similar in power to a large handgun round such as the .44 Magnum. However, although it is true that there are high-powered rifles using larger ammo on an AR-15 platform, it does not follow that a statement such as "high-powered models like AR-15s" makes sense. Why not talk about "fast cars like a Ford"? After all, the Ford GT can move, and let's not mention the Focus.

The Justice Department study does muddy the distinction between the notions that (a) rifles are generally more powerful than handguns and (b) rifles have a wide range of calibers and power. From the study (p. 63 of .pdf) they get off to a good start:

Although the use of handguns is the clear majority in cases where an officer was killed with a firearm, it should be noted that more than 20 percent of the officers were killed by suspects with rifles. The majority of those rifles were semiautomatic, magazine fed weapons, such as an AR-15 or AK-47 style weapon, not a hunting rifle or bolt action rifle. Most officers are not equipped with body armor that can defend against rifle rounds. Although many cases involved officers shot in the head, where having body armor would not have prevented their death, there are several cases where data provided to us specifically calls out that that a rifle round penetrated the officer’s vest.

Fair enough - they are not claiming that high powered rifles create a special problem not presented by ordinary rifles. And testing standards for bullet proof vests do distinguish rifle rounds at Level III protection, although they use the NATO 7.62. I would be curious to see how a normal .223 round would compare with the .44 Magnum round used at Level III-A.

However, a bit later we see this (p. 70, .pdf) in the DoJ study we encounter blurred lines:

As indicated by an analysis of weapons used against officers, and the fact that 21 percent of officers were shot by suspects using high powered rifles, there is a need to evaluate the issuance of hard body armor, helmets, and ballistic shields that can be quickly-deployed in high-risk incidents. Additionally, the use of ballistic panels for vehicle doors should be evaluated.

Either each rifle was evaluated and placed in the "high-powered rifle" category, or they are repeating the basic point that rifles are generally more powerful than handguns. Troubling.

OMG I Blame Trump!

From the Times:

Computer Systems Used by Clinton Campaign Are Said to Be Hacked, Apparently by Russians

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON — Computer systems used by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign were hacked in an attack that appears to have come from Russia’s intelligence services, a federal law enforcement official said on Friday.

The apparent breach, coming after the disclosure last month that the Democratic National Committee’s computer system had been compromised, escalates an international episode in which Clinton campaign officials have suggested that Russia might be trying to sway the outcome of the election.

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign said in a statement that intruders had gained access to an analytics program used by the campaign and maintained by the national committee, but it said that it did not believe that the campaign’s own internal computer systems had been compromised.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the fund-raising arm for House Democrats, also said on Friday that its systems had been hacked. Together, the databases of the national committee and the House organization contain some of the party’s most sensitive communications and voter and financial data.

Clown show. But as this vast Left Wing Conspiracy unfolds all we will hear from the MSM from now to November is that a vote for Trump is a vote for Putin. Whatever - they need to rally their base and rationalize their vote for a grifter, and this may be what it takes.

Hillary's Speech - Christmas In July

Her Not-So Inevitability gave her Big Speech last night. I watched bits of it - was she shrieking her way through it in her best impression of Donald Trump, or was that just me? Let me be clear - I don't hate Hillary. I hate the leaders of ISIS, and the ISIS thug who tried to decapitate an 86 year old priest in France. Yes, that makes me a bit of a failure on the "hate the sin, love the sinner" frontier, But I am OK with that. My point being, on that scale, I don't hate Hillary.

But wow, do I loathe her. I understand that every word coming our of her mouth was poll-tested and focus-grouped, and the odds are that she believes little to nothing of what she says, but still - the endless list of More Free Stuff Faster may succeed in uniting her party around unicorn rides and magic puppies, but how did she manage to keep a straight face? I credit botox.

Two moments struck me as rivals for Peak Absurdity. Here is the first:

I believe that our economy isn’t working the way it should because our democracy isn’t working the way it should.

That’s why we need to appoint Supreme Court justices who will get money out of politics and expand voting rights, not restrict them. And we’ll pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United!

 I believe American corporations that have gotten so much from our country should be just as patriotic in return.

Many of them are. But too many aren’t.

It’s wrong to take tax breaks with one hand and give out pink slips with the other.

So we are now judging the patriotism of others, a notion which sent Dems to the fainting couch during the Dark Bush Years (sorry, that was Bush II - lots of darkness for Dems). OK, corporations are "people" for some legal purposes, but how can a company be patriotic? One might have thought that various employees, officers or owners miught be patriots, but how does that translate, especially for a multinational with owners, employees and operations all over the world? I don't know.

But do note - just before calling on corporations to step it up on the patriotism front by paying more taxes she demands that they be stripped of their free speech rights as established by Citizens United and soon to be overturned, err, reinterpreted by the Hillarity! Court. Shorter Hillary; Hey, corporate America - Pay up and STFU.

The other laughably revelatory moment was this, as she explained how she would finance the unicorn rides by taxing the Koch brothers and Mitt Romney's kids:

Now, here’s the thing, we’re not only going to make all these investments, we’re going to pay for every single one of them.

And here’s how: Wall Street, corporations, and the super rich are going to start paying their fair share of taxes.

Not because we resent success. Because when more than 90 percent of the gains have gone to the top 1 percent, that’s where the money is. [And we are going to follow the money.]

"Follow the money" is not in the prepared text but was an ad-lib at about 7:43:20 of the video, and was noted elsewhere.

So on our scorecards: "That's where the money is" is the famous Willie Sutton line about why he robs banks. "Follow the money" is, for my generation anyway, a classic Watergate drama exhortation, although it has since been re-purposed for the Clinton Foundation.

So when Hillary talks about taxing the rich she immediately swings to images of theft and corruption. Charming, especially since she was quite clear that she does not resent success. Then again, she and Bill didn't amass their hundred million inventing anything or building much of anything other than a global influence-peddling empire, so maybe she has internalized the notion that all wealth is ill-gotten. Uh huh.

Four years of this?

MORE: "Follow the money" did light up Twitter.

Hillary's Big Night Coming Up

Hillary finally ends our short national nightmare in Philly. i am still loving this from Wild Bill:

 ‘She’s the best darn changemaker I ever met’

Really? I didn't realize Bill paid his women. Still, that endorsement would be compelling if we were electing a toll booth operator, or even a subway token clerk (do they still have tokens?). And maybe it lends credence to the notion that Hillary understands how changing technology has made many occupations obsolete.

Maybe.

Then again, as skilled artists of the second-oldest profession, Bill and Hillary surely are skilled at taking folding money and returning change, so maybe we should take Bill at his word. First time for everything.

I Have A Problem With Peter Beinart's Problem

Via Glenn, Peter Beinart in The Atlantic flags a problem with Bill Clinton's speech to the Democratic Convention (CNN transcript):

But the worst moment of the speech came near its end, when Clinton began to riff about the different kinds of people who should join Hillary’s effort. “If you love this country, you’re working hard, you’re paying taxes, you’re obeying the law and you’d like to become a citizen, you should choose immigration reform over someone that wants to send you back,” he said. Fair enough. Under any conceivable immigration overhaul, only those undocumented immigrants who have obeyed the law once in the United States—which includes paying taxes—will qualify for citizenship. Two sentences later, Clinton said that, “If you’re a young African American disillusioned and afraid … help us build a future where no one’s afraid to walk outside, including the people that wear blue to protect our future.” No problem there. Of course African Americans should be safe from abusive police, and of course, police should be safe from the murderers who threaten them.

But in between, Clinton said something dreadful: “If you’re a Muslim and you love America and freedom and you hate terror, stay here and help us win and make a future together, we want you.” The problem is in the assumption. American Muslims should be viewed exactly the same way other Americans are. If they commit crimes, then they should be prosecuted, just like other Americans. But they should not have to prove that they “love America and freedom” and “hate terror” to “stay here.” Their value as Americans is inherent, not instrumental. Their role as Americans is not to “help us win” the “war on terror.”

Whether Clinton meant to or not, he lapsed into Trumpism: the implication that Muslims are a class apart, deserving of special scrutiny and surveillance, guilty of terrorist sympathies until proven innocent...

I have a problem with their problem - what is the basis for assuming Clinton is specifically talking about American Muslims, rather than Muslims here as tourists, students or workers on a visa?

The reason I ask is that it is perfectly obvious that when Clinton talks about valuing the support of those who would "like to become a citizen" and exhorts them to "choose immigration reform", he is obviously not talking about citizens.

As to just how these citizen-aspirants are meant to show their support for immigration reform, well, I hope our former President was not advocating vote fraud from the convention podium. I also hope he was not encouraging foreigners to write illegal checks to the Hillary campaign.

Of course if foreigners are in this country, legally or well, pre-documentation, I am sure they are free to attend rallies, stuff envelopes, staff phone banks and knock on doors. So sure, let them show their support. Non-Citizens United for Hillary! Should be a winning message, since who really trusts America to be run by the Americans anyway?

Since Clinton was clearly talking about foreigners in the immigration passage I don't know why Mr. Beinart isn't willing to extend him that courtesy in evaluating the Muslim passage. And Clinton's plea that these Muslims should "stay here and help us win" suggests they might be thinking of leaving, which is surely more likely for a foreigner.  Of course, that interpretation compounds the awkward question of just what mix of foreign and domestic support the Clinton's are seeking, but let's Move On.

 

Tomorrow's Spin Today!

OK, so Day One of the Democratic Party Convention was sub-optimal (Booing the invocation? Santa Claus nods.)

But let's get ahead of the spin doctors. By Thursday night, barring a literal Chernobyl-style meltdown caused by plutonium brought to the floor by misogynistic Bernie Bros, Dem spinmeisters and NY Times editors will be assuring us that under her calm, steady, inspirational leadership Hillary overcame a rocky start (Rocky - Philly - I see what I did there!) and united her party beneath her beneficence. And her wisdom, obvi.

Whatever. As to Bernie's ineffectual efforts to calm down his supporters, he is making the classic mistake of thinking that the guy at the head of the parade is leading it. Angry Anybody But Hillary progressives were numerous before Sanders came along; they got behind him because he was the only game in town, but they won't stay behind him if he veers off their chosen course. And their chosen course does not include getting behind a continuation of the corporatist/statist Big Business As Usual vision offered by Clinton/Kaine and the Bought and Paid For wing of the Democratic Party.

Well. Republicans are able to unite in disdain for Hillary, although who expected "Lock her up" chants at the Dem convention? Presumably we can anticipate three days of vigorous Donald-bashing, after which Dems will hail Hillary's positive vision for a better America. Whatever.

So Much News

Matt Drudge has ample coverage of the Dem Debacle in Philly. Hillary's latest poll numbers are brutal and the leaked DNC emails are not promoting either party unity or public confidence.

But my favorite sentence of the day comes from this story on a shooting outside a nightclub in Fort Myers, Fla.:

Sean, a student at Royal Palm Exceptional School, was shot in the parking lot, and a girl with him was shot in a leg...

Yeah, I once shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know. [KIDDING! No elephants were harmed during the writing of this blog.]

The coverage of the Fort Myers shooting clearly gave the media some problems. Since it was a nightclub shooting, there was a possible terror connection. On the other hand, Black Lives Matter when they are shot by police officers, but otherwise, ethnically oriented gang-bangers blazing away at each other is normally kept off the front page since no one is coming out in favor of a stronger police effort in our troubled inner cities.

And this shooting looks more like the teen hoods than terror, so Move On.

PEAK CRAZY: This killer in Japan is crazier than ISIS:

Nineteen people have been killed in a knife attack at a residential care centre for the mentally disabled in Japan, local emergency services say.

The attack in Sagamihara happened in the early hours of Tuesday. Another 26 people were injured, 20 seriously.

Local police have arrested a male suspect after he turned himself in.

The man is said to be aged 26, and is a former employee at the the Tsukui Yamayuri Garden facility, 40km (25 miles) south-west of Tokyo.

He is reported to have told police he wanted disabled people to disappear.

 

Let The People Decide

The Times describes progressive angst about Hillary's VP pick:

But as Mr. Kaine sought to flex his language skills to appeal to Hispanic voters, he and Mrs. Clinton were also trying to mollify a growing backlash from the left against his record of support for global trade deals, which many voters in Rust Belt states blame for the loss of American manufacturing jobs.

Mr. Kaine was one of 13 Senate Democrats to vote in support of giving President Obama “fast track” authority on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the 12-nation pact that has become a lightning rod this election year. In a clear sign of concern that the issue could be damaging, aides to both Democrats signaled on Saturday that Mr. Kaine would soon publicly adopt Mrs. Clinton’s current position on the deal and say that he no longer supported it in its current form.

Of course he will 'evolve' on trade. And like Hillarity!, he is also strongly in favor of comprehensive immigration reform:

Immigration

Mr. Kaine supports Mr. Obama’s executive actions that would have shielded as many as five million undocumented immigrants from deportation and allowed them to legally work in the United States. He also backs a comprehensive immigration overhaul that would allow those living in the country illegally to gain legal residency if they pay taxes and a fine.

Where Mrs. Clinton stands: Mrs. Clinton has vowed to restore and expand Mr. Obama’s executive actions and to protect the parents of children who are in the country legally. She is expected to push for the comprehensive immigration overhaul in her first 100 days if she is elected president.

Well, excellent. Let's have the Democratic candidates pound the table for gun control and de facto open borders and the Republicans do the opposite, and we can see where the country comes out.

Of course the losing side will claim, with good reason, to have been represented by a flawed messenger.

More on progressive problems with Kaine at Politico.

Kaine Is Able!

kaine is able, and Able I was ere I saw Hillarity! Tim Kaine, former Governor and current Senator of the great Commonwealth of Virginia, is Hillary's pick for VP.

In a bit of pre-pick speculation, CNN noted Kaine's appeal as a gun controller:

(CNN)Tim Kaine refers to April 16, 2007, as the worst day of his life.

Kaine, then the governor of Virginia, had landed in Japan for an Asia trade mission. Shortly after arriving at his hotel, Kaine was awoken by a phone call from his chief-of-staff: a gunman had opened fire at Virginia Tech. Kaine immediately flew back to the United States and would soon learn that 32 people were killed in the massacre, marking the worst mass shooting in the country's history up to that point.

...

With a series of recent shootings once again thrusting the issue of guns to the forefront of national politics, Kaine's response to Virginia Tech and his work to promote gun control and safety measures loom larger than ever. Should Clinton chooses the Virginia senator as her running mate, this part of Kaine's biography would no doubt be a prominent part of his story as a vice presidential nominee.

 

If this means the Democrats will campaign openly on stricter gun control and we will be spared a photo-op this fall in which Hillarity! dresses in camo and blazes away at some hapless geese I am all for it. Vox populi.

 

Back to CNN:

 

Kaine, himself a gun-owner, also convened a commission to examine what had gone wrong.

 

The panelists made a series of recommendations on guns, campus safety and mental health. Kaine pushed through some of those proposed changes, including an executive order to ensure individuals legally declared mentally ill or dangerous would be registered into a national database and barred from purchasing weapons.

 

But the Republican legislature at the time would not take up a universal background check system -- something Kaine believed could have prevented the gunman from getting his hands on firearms. It was a frustrating setback for Kaine, who had gambled his political capital on gun control in a historically pro-gun, Republican-leaning state.

 

The commission report is here. Back in the day I highlighted their conclusion that, since the shooter used both ten and fifteen round magazines for his handguns, banning larger magazines would probably not have made a difference. I presume their thoughts on improved linkage of mental health records with the background check system are on target.

 

ERRATA: a Federal study in 2013 concluded that banning large capacity magazines (more than ten rounds) would have an effect if imports were banned and we waited a few decades for the current stock to become incompatible or unusable with future weaponry. Patience is its own reward:

 

In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail their availability to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession. An exemption for previously owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact. The program would need to be coupled with an extensive buyback of existing large capacity magazines. With an exemption the impact of the restrictions would only be felt when the magazines degrade or when they no longer are compatible with guns in circulation. This would take decades to realize.

 

LESS CAREFULLY STUDIED: I can't find much research on the Times idea to ban "high capacity ammunition", Howard Kurtz's idea to ban "high magazine clips", or any follow-up on the efficacy of California's ban (as described in an Onion wanna-be, picked up by the Times editors, and corrected four months later) on .45 ACP.

 

The Times was much quicker to correct this assertion:

 

The officials said the president will call for a new and tougher ban on military style assault weapons and to limit the number of rounds that can be in a magazine to 10. That would eliminate the 30-round magazines that were used in Newtown as well as other mass shootings at Virginia Tech, a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., and a congresswoman’s public event in Tucson, Ariz.

 

Magazines confuse these print media people.

Trump's Speech

Trump's speech was longer, louder and less spontaneous than I expected. Did the new, scripted, disciplined Donald change any minds? Are there minds left to change? This was sort of like tuning in to a hockey game and seeing, well, hockey. With no brawls, and who wants that?

And the speech was so dark. Criminals are going to kill you. Immigrants are going to take your job and kill you. ISIS is going to totally kill you, except Trump will kill them faster.

Somewhere, "Let's Make America Great Again" drifted to "Let's Make America Stop Sucking So Hard". Or, "It's Mourning in America".

Well. Let's Make Speeches Grate Again. Sorry - LET'S MAKE SPEECHES GRATE AGAIN! Yikes.

Fair And Balanced

The Times covers Trump's latest ruminations on his "America First" foreign policy vision and there is a lot to be alarmed about. This gets the lead:

CLEVELAND — Donald J. Trump, on the eve of accepting the Republican nomination for president, explicitly raised new questions on Wednesday about his commitment to automatically defending NATO allies if they are attacked, saying he would first look at their contributions to the alliance.

Asked about Russia’s threatening activities, which have unnerved the small Baltic States that are among the more recent entrants into NATO, Mr. Trump said that if Russia attacked them, he would decide whether to come to their aid only after reviewing if those nations have “fulfilled their obligations to us.”

“If they fulfill their obligations to us,” he added, “the answer is yes.”

I mean, what? At the minimum edge of deterrence I would think these reviews would be ongoing, with members urged to pick it up or else. (Or else what? Don't ask - when I channel my Inner Trump I don't get a strong, consistent signal).

But this suggested process - hmm, Estonia's been invaded, let's see if they are up to our double-secret standards and then we'll decide what to do - is Trumpian in its absurdity.

But speaking of absurdity, this is the Times, the gift that keeps on giving. This bit started in Turkey, my emphasis:

Mr. Trump also said he would not pressure Turkey or other authoritarian allies about conducting purges of their political adversaries or cracking down on civil liberties. The United States, he said, has to “fix our own mess” before trying to alter the behavior of other nations.

“I don’t think we have a right to lecture,” Mr. Trump said in a wide-ranging interview in his suite in a downtown hotel here, while keeping an eye on television broadcasts from the Republican National Convention. “Look at what is happening in our country,” he said. “How are we going to lecture when people are shooting policemen in cold blood?”

...

Asked if Mr. Erdogan was exploiting the coup attempt to purge his political enemies, Mr. Trump did not call for the Turkish leader to observe the rule of law, or Western standards of justice. “When the world sees how bad the United States is and we start talking about civil liberties, I don’t think we are a very good messenger,” he said.

The Obama administration has refrained from any concrete measures to pressure Turkey, fearing for the stability of a crucial ally in a volatile region. But Secretary of State John F. Kerry has issued several statements urging Mr. Erdogan to follow the rule of law.

Mr. Trump offered no such caution for restraint to Turkey and nations like it. However, his argument about America’s moral authority is not a new one: Russia, China, North Korea and other autocratic nations frequently cite violence and disorder on American streets to justify their own practices, and to make the case that the United States has no standing to criticize them.

Ahh, so now Trump is siding with North Korea, China and Russia? Their key link seems to be violence on America's streets, because I missed their clarification when, just to stab at an example, Obama cited America's declining moral authority as a key impetus in closing Gitmo:

Defending his decision to close the military detention centre at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, Obama said the prison has made the United States less safe and caused a setback to the country's "moral authority."

"There is also no question that Guantanamo (led to a) setback (to) the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world," Obama said. "The record is clear: Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security."

 "It is a rallying cry for our enemies. It sets back the willingness of our allies to work with us in fighting an enemy that operates in scores of countries. By any measure, the costs of keeping it open far exceed the complications involved in closing it," he said.

 

Gitmo is "a rallying cry for our enemies" and Obama agrees with them we need to close it, so who is siding with whom, hmm?

 

Oh, obviously Bush-era enhanced interrogation undermined our moral authority, again per Obama and any number of other progressives.

 

As a bonus, Robert Reich, who stands on the shoulders of giants, explained that Trump himself is undermining America's moral authority:

While he supports the anti-establishment candidate of the Democratic party, Reich said he’s deeply concerned about the rise of Trump and the voters who support him.

"They are fomenting this backlash against the establishment in some very ugly ways that is leading to polarization, and name calling, (and) racism, and tarnishing America's moral authority around the world — which is also bad for American business," he said.

Why do they hate America?

I May Never Like Ted Cruz But...

I may never like Ted Cruz but I love this:

Ted Cruz Stirs Convention Fury in Pointed Snub of Donald Trump

By PATRICK HEALY and JONATHAN MARTIN  JULY 20, 2016

CLEVELAND — The Republican convention erupted into tumult on Wednesday night as the bitter primary battle between Donald J. Trump and Senator Ted Cruz reignited unexpectedly, crushing hopes that the party could project unity.

In the most electric moment of the convention, boos and jeers broke out as it became clear that Mr. Cruz — in a prime-time address from center stage — was not going to endorse Mr. Trump. It was a pointed snub on the eve of Mr. Trump’s formal acceptance speech.

As hundreds of delegates chanted “Vote for Trump!” and “Say it!” Mr. Cruz tried to dismiss the outburst as “enthusiasm of the New York delegation” — only to have Mr. Trump himself suddenly appear in the back of the convention hall. Virtually every head in the room seemed to turn from Mr. Cruz to Mr. Trump, who was stone-faced and clearly angry as he egged on delegates by pumping his fist.

Mr. Cruz was all but drowned out as he asked for God’s blessing on the country and left the stage, while security personnel escorted his wife, Heidi, out of the hall. One delegate yelled “Goldman Sachs!” at her — a reference to the company that has employed her, a job that Mr. Trump attacked during the primaries.

A short while later, Mr. Cruz faced insults as he made his way down a corridor — one woman yelled “Traitor!” When he tried to enter the convention suite of the Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, he was turned away.

OK, that was pretty brassy. And the next day, nothing has changed:

CLEVELAND — Facing jeers even from many of his own constituents, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas on Thursday defended his non-endorsement of Donald J. Trump, talking down hecklers at a fractious breakfast forum the morning after his performance onstage upended the Republican National Convention.

In an extraordinary display of party division — at a typically staid Texas state delegation breakfast that is intended to exemplify convention-week harmony — Mr. Cruz strained to manage the vitriol directed his way, stressing that he had not said a cross word about Mr. Trump.

“I addressed the convention because Donald Trump asked me to,” he said. “And when Donald Trump asked me to, he didn’t ask me to endorse.”

“We don’t just put on red jerseys and blue jerseys,” he added. “This is about principles and ideals.”

...

When attendees pointed out Mr. Cruz’s past pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee, Mr. Cruz suggested that any agreement was “abrogated” when Mr. Trump attacked the senator’s family.

“I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father,” he said, adding that he was not a “servile puppy dog.”

A man in the back hollered at the stage: “You’ve got to get over it. This is politics.”

“No, this is not politics,” Mr. Cruz said sharply. “I will tell the truth.”

At this point he has made his bed and needs to lie in it, probably while enduring a beating. But good for him.

DOWN HILL FROM HERE: This is the part of the speech (a speech I heartily recommend, by the way) where delegates saw Cruz coming into the homestretch without having uttered the magic words:

And, so can we. We deserve leaders who stand for principle, who unite us all behind shared values, who cast aside anger for love. That is the standard we should expect from everybody. And, to those listening, please don't stay home in November.  

If you love our country, and love our children as much as you do, stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom, and to be faithful to the constitution.  

I appreciate the enthusiasm of the New York delegation.  

And I will tell you that it is love of freedom that has allowed millions to achieve their dreams. Like my mom, the first in her family to go to college, and my dad, who's here tonight, who fled prison and torture in Cuba. Coming to Texas with just $100 dollars sewn into his underwear.  

And it is over that I hope will bring comfort to a grieving nine- year-old girl in Dallas, and God willing, propel her to move forward, and dream, and soar, and make her daddy proud. We must make the most of our moments, to fight for freedom, to protect our God given rights, even if those with whom we don't agree so that when we are old and grey, and when our work is done, and when we give those we love one final kiss goodbye we will be able to say freedom matters and I was part of something beautiful.  

The case we have to make to the American people, the case each person in this room has to make to the American people is to commit to each of them that we will defend freedom, and be faithful to the Constitution.

We will unite the party; we will unite the country by standing together for shared values by standing for liberty. God bless each and every one of you, and God bless the United States of America.  

SINCE YOU ASKED: Here is an excerpt from Reagan's 'Did he or didn't he?' sorta-endorsement speech for Ford at the 1976 convention:

This is our challenge and this is why we’re here in this hall tonight. Better than we’ve ever done before, we’ve got to quit talking to each other and about each other and go out and communicate to the world that we may be fewer in numbers than we’ve ever been but we carry the message they’re waiting for. We must go forth from here united, determined and what a great general said a few years ago is true: “There is no substitute for victory.” Mr. President.

Times columnist Tom Wicker lauded Reagan's unification effort:

THREADING THE NEEDLE MORE CAREFULLY:

Here is a transcript of Marco Rubio's pre-recorded address to the convention. After some Hillary-bashing, the close:

Hillary Clinton does not have the honesty, the courage or the independence to be the president we need for the next four years after the president we've had for the past eight. But unlike Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump is committed to cut taxes, curb spending and get our national debt under control. Unlike Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump takes seriously the threats from Islamic radicals and is committed to rebuilding our military. And unlike Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, he is committed to appointing constitutionalist judges, who will respect the proper role of the judiciary.

After a long and spirited primary, the time for fighting each other is over. It's time to come together and fight for a new direction for America.

It's time to win in November.

Ahh, whatever. Trump has small hands, too, and Little Marco should have said so.

 

Ted Cruz On Deck

Tonight we hear from Ted Cruz, who probably has not plagiarized anything.

Holding On For a Hero

This plea for media ex machina is funny, or sad:

The man who could have stopped Donald Trump

Oliver Darcy

CNN couldn't stop Donald Trump. Neither could Fox News.

Some of the nation's most influential conservatives, from Glenn Beck to Bill Kristol, were powerless. Karl Rove and the Bush family had no effect. Scandal after scandal failed to put a chink in his armor.

And the 16 other GOP contenders, comprising some of the party's brightest and budding stars, proved to be impotent.

But some observers say that one man may have had the power to prevent Donald Trump's accession within the Republican Party: Matt Drudge.

"If Drudge had come out really negatively against Trump and had supported someone who would have played well with his reader base like Cruz, it would have been much harder for Trump to win," BuzzFeed political reporter and editor Andrew Kaczynski told Business Insider, referring to Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.

Interesting. How Rush Limbaugh was overlooked in the roster of seemingly powerful figures is a mystery. As to whether Drudge helped create the Trump wave or simply rode it, this story kicks that around inconclusively.

Stuck On Baton Rouge

More on the shooter in Baton Rouge from the Daily Caller.

Sunday Morning

Drudge is headlining the 'faux coup' theory.

Did Erdogan STAGE the coup? US-based Turkish cleric facing extradition over botched rebellion claims president orchestrated plot to justify a clampdown on civil rights

 

Coup In Turkey Seems To Have Failed

Per the Times the Turkish government seems to have regained the upper hand.

An odd US wrinkle:

Mr. Erdogan placed blame for the intrigue on the followers of Fethullah Gulen, a Muslim cleric living in exile in Pennsylvania, who was the president’s ally until a bitter falling out three years ago. Mr. Gulen’s followers were known to have a strong presence in Turkey’s police and judiciary, but less so in the military.

Speaking Saturday morning, Mr. Erdogan said, referring to Mr. Gulen: “I have a message for Pennsylvania: You have engaged in enough treason against this nation. If you dare, come back to your country.”

Pennsylvania - a swing state on two continents! I had no idea.

And, subject to the caveat that I know virtually nothing of Turkish politics, let me add this Game of Thrones notion - generals who were sympathetic to the goals of the coup but skeptics as to timing may have helped quash it, thereby positioning themselves as defenders of democracy and heroes of the nation. That may be helpful if they later decide to undertake a coup of their own, although Erdogan, not born yesterday, may see right through that gambit and slap them in prison on trumped-up charges a few months from now. Byzantine intrigue in Turkey? More surprises!

Slow News Friday Afternoon

Just another slow summertime news day this Friday. All we have is:

1. An attempted coup in Turkey;
2. The release of the 28 secret pages from the 9/11 Commission Report describing the Saudi - Al Qaeda connections;
3. Trumps ends the suspense with Pence.

The terror attack in Nice is soo yesterday.

And do let me add - it must be tough running a cable news operation on a Friday afternoon, but..

On Fox I saw some conspiracist I did not recognize leading a panel of three unfamiliar faces.

CNN had Wolf Blitzer, I believe from a secure remote location.

And MSNBC, normally my go-away-from channel due to the Maddow/Sharpton effect, had Brian Williams in the studio with Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd and David Sanger of the Times on camera.

Sure, they are all Beltway liberals but when any of them say "my sources tell me", well, they all have been at this a while and have some real sources.

 

Nobody Likes An 'I Told You So'

Nobody likes an "I told you so", which means critics of Obama's open-restrooms policy will be losing a lot of friends:

Transgender Woman Is Charged With Voyeurism at Target in Idaho

By NIRAJ CHOKSHIJULY   14, 2016

I'm surprised the Times dared publish this. From the story, the suspect used a smartphone video camera and eventually confessed. Had she merely eyeballed other women, the evidence would be much less compelling.

The authorities in Idaho charged a transgender woman this week with secretly taking pictures of an 18-year-old woman changing in a Target fitting room.

The national retail chain drew praise from transgender advocates and condemnation from conservative groups when it announced in April that it would allow customers to use the restroom or fitting room corresponding to their gender identity.

An officer from the Bonneville County Sheriff’s Office was called to a Target in Ammon, Idaho, on Monday evening by a woman who said she saw someone reach over the wall separating the fitting rooms there with an iPhone taking pictures or a video, according to a court document. While a majority of Target locations have unisex fitting rooms, the Ammon store does not, a spokeswoman said.

In the longer run, unisex changing rooms and bath rooms are the solution to this particular societal evolution. There are obvious obstacles - it can be expensive; settings that include large crowds, such as concert halls or schools, might need to (horrors!) provide gender-specific facilities complemented by unisex alternatives; and retro-fitting public schools might strain already scarce public funds.

Not to mention feminist complaints about micro-aggressions regarding whether the toilet seat is up or down, and why did that eight-year old boy pee all over it anyway?

All of this could have taken place after something representing a national conversation, but Obama is a man in a hurry.

Forward!

The Terror Continues In France

A Bastille Day attack in Nice which is being called terrorism.

PARIS — The death toll from the terrorist attack on a Bastille Day fireworks celebration in the southern French city of Nice rose to 84 on Friday, as the government raced to establish the attacker’s identity, extended a national state of emergency and absorbed the shock of a third major terrorist attack in 19 months.

“We will not give in to the terrorist threat,” Prime Minister Manuel Valls said Friday morning after a cabinet meeting led by President François Hollande. “The times have changed, and France is going to have to live with terrorism.”

News organizations in France and Tunisia identified the man believed to have committed the attack as Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, 31, a delivery-truck driver who was born on Jan. 3, 1985, and raised in Msaken, a town in northeastern Tunisia, and who moved to France around 2005. The police searched a home in Nice with Mr. Bouhlel’s name outside it.

According to two officials briefed on the investigation but who were not authorized to discuss it publicly, Mr. Bouhlel had a history of petty crime, including burglary and theft, but his name was not in of a French database of suspected radicalized militants.

Searching For Scandal in the Empty Spaces

Politico analyzes Hillary's emails, and the odd gaps therein, in a way that would have been a lot more useful back during the Bernie Spring.

Poll "Shockers"

Trump ahead in key swing states (are there any other kind)?:

Swing-state stunner: Trump has edge in key states

By Steven Shepard and Nick Gass

07/13/16 06:00 AM EDT  Updated 07/13/16 09:41 AM EDT

Did Donald Trump really just surge past Hillary Clinton in two of the election's most important battlegrounds?

New swing-state polls released Wednesday by Quinnipiac University show Trump leading Clinton in Florida and Pennsylvania — and tied in the critical battleground state of Ohio. In three of the states that matter most in November, the surveys point to a race much closer than the national polls, which have Clinton pegged to a significant, mid-single-digit advantage over Trump, suggest.

Let me under-think and over-simplify this: Is it reasonable to suggest we are looking at a "Change versus More of the Same" election, to borrow the Clinton/Carville '92 formulation? Subtle global hints such as Brexit or, I don't know, Trump's coup of the Republican Party and the prolonged Bernie Who insurgency suggest it might be.

And (the questions will get progressively more difficult), of the Trump/Clinton choice, who represents change and who represents a continuation of the Chamber of Commerce Democratic/Republican Beltway coalition that has alienated and impoverished Middle America with trade deals and uncontrolled immigration for the last few decades? Hmm, there might be a slight residual pollster bias in that question.

Hillary and her supporters want to pretend that electing a woman to continue the corporatist/statist regime of the last few decades represents "change". Please. She is the "More of the Same" candidate.

And how has "More of the Same" been working out in the last few weeks? Not so well.

 

Donald Trump, Bringing People Together

The moon is blue, Hades has frozen over, and the NY Times editors publish this:

Donald Trump Is Right About Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Of course he is, but still...

Lots Of News

Lots of news and I can't seem to process any of it.

Sunday Morning

Breakfast at Wimbledon is looking like more of a quick snack with Murray up 2 sets to love.

Appalling And Insane

The current headline from Dallas:

Dallas Police: Snipers Shoot 11 Officers, 4 Dead

DALLAS (CBSDFW.COM) – A peaceful protest has taken a turn after snipers shot 11 police officers, killing four, according to Dallas Police Chief Brown.

“Some officers were shot in the back,” said Chief Brown, who added during a press conference that they believe a bomb may be hidden somewhere downtown.

UPDATE: CBS from Dallas:

At a news conference Friday, Brown said the suspect made the comments during a standoff with police in a downtown Dallas parking garage.

“We cornered one suspect and we tried to negotiate for several hours,” Brown said. “Negotiations broke down, we had an exchange of gunfire with the suspect.”

He said the suspect told officers he was upset about the Black Lives Matter movement and the recent police shootings.

“The suspect said he was upset at white people. The suspect stated he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers,” Brown said.

The suspect was later killed by an explosive used by police, Brown said.

“We saw no other option but to use our bomb robot and place a device on its extension for it to detonate where the suspect was,” Brown said. “Other options would’ve exposed our officers to grave danger.”

Well, then - as in Orlando, his true motive will never be known.

 

On The Lighter Side...

Trump, seeking GOP unity, has tense meeting with Senate Republicans

Full video tonight on the Comedy Channel. Unless it is picked up by Shark Week.

 

Big News Day And Aftermath

What did I miss?

FWIW, Benjamin Wittes of Lawfare has a plausible explanation of why Hillary gets a pass for what surely looks like gross negligence in the handling of classified intel. Lest you doubt his bona fides, his resume:

Benjamin Wittes is editor in chief of Lawfare and a Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of several books and is co-chair of the Hoover Institution's Working Group on National Security, Technology, and Law.

All that said, I am still bitter that FBI Director Comey did not simultaneously announce an indictment referral against Hillary and an injunction against the Durant/Golden State deal. Grr...

Independence Day!

Away we go. And be safe with those explosives or leave them to those with a clear idea of what they are doing.

The Tribe To End All Tribes

The always interesting Ross Douthat on the global, cosmopolitan, post-tribalism tribe.

Happy Pre-Independence Day

Away we go on a beautiful Sunday.

Hillary Talks, Later Walks

The Hillary kabuki continues with her FBI interview today. And even reliably lefty spinners feel obliged to bash Bill Clinton's shameless meeting with AG Loretta Lynch, which is yet more evidence the media thinks Hillary is safely home.

I would love to be surprised by the outcome.

Get Back, Loretta!

AG Loretta Lynch kinda-sorta recuses herself after her debacle of a meeting with Bill Clinton.

Of course, they had a lot to talk about. If the conversation about Hillary's emails lagged, there was the question of whether Hillary passed along State Dept. info about a Greek bailout to her hedge-fund son-in-law, with Bill as a possible conduit.