JustOneMinute

Back In The Ukraine

The NY Times explains that the "focus" of the Whistleblower scandal is whether Trump abused Presidential power for political purposes in 2019. Trump wants to "deflect" from that by alleging that Obama/Biden abused Presidential power for political purposes by pressuring the Ukraine in 2016. Hmm.

The controversy has focused on whether Mr. Trump manipulated foreign policy — a military aid package to Ukraine had been delayed at the time of the phone call — to pressure the country’s newly elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to take action to damage Mr. Biden’s election bid.

On Saturday, Mr. Trump sought to deflect attention from that question by accusing Mr. Biden of acting improperly as vice president in calling for the ouster of a Ukranian prosecutor who had overseen an inquiry into corruption related to the oligarch whose company employed Hunter Biden.

Trump's supporters also wonder whether the Ukrainian dirt that was dished on Manafort in 2016 was put forward as a favor to Team Obama in a bid to hit Trump and boost Hillary.

As to Biden:

No evidence has surfaced to support Mr. Trump’s claim that the former vice president intentionally tried to help his son by pressing for the prosecutor general’s dismissal. But some State Department officials had expressed concern that Hunter Biden’s work in Ukraine could complicate his father’s diplomacy there.

No evidence has emerged, which might be a predictable consequence of a quashed investigation. Then again, proving there is no evidence offers the usual challenge of proving a negative. Fun for everyone!

Well. If the media can take down Trump *and* Biden its a win-win for their most engaged readership/viewership. TBF, it also creates a huge opening in the Sane Center, if there is any viable candidate left to fill it.

Taking Down Trump AND Biden!

Good plot twist by the showrunners - there are a lot of Democrats and media members who will love this whistle-blowing scandal even more if it also ensnares Sleep (But Corrupt!) Joe Biden.

On the other hand, Establishment Republicans may be thinking that keeping Joe propped up doesn't look so bad relative to a President Warren. That said, they have to realize he is this election cycle's version of Jeb Bush, running on name recognition and fumes.

AND... chasing Joe out now opens up the moderate lane. Kamala Harris, still a bit of a newcomer to the Crazy Left, may try to revive her fading hopes by veering back towards the center. Who knows!?!

Meanwhile, Back In Israel

Netanyahu on the ropes as Gantz declares victory.

JERUSALEM — 

 Benny Gantz, a former chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, declared victory in the nation’s close parliamentary election Thursday, two days after voters went to the polls.

 

Gantz, 60, leader of the opposition Blue and White party, has held a steady lead over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his conservative Likud party, with 98% of the votes counted.

 

Official figures have not yet been released, but Gantz held two seats more than Netanyahu in the tight race. The Electoral Commission in Israel only releases voting figures, without any declarations of a winner.

 

On Thursday, Israel spun into political melodrama as Netanyahu attempted to grab the momentum ahead of coalition negotiations to form a government even as Gantz appeared to be cementing his slight lead.

 

Both parties would require partners to establish a government with a ruling majority.

Melting Down At The Times

The NY Times runs a hit piece on SC Justice Kavanaugh that

(a) omits seemingly relevant exculpatory evidence, to wit, the alleged victim refused to talk to the press and her friends say she recalls nothing of the incident and

(b) buries the seeming lede - Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's friend and chief 'witness' remembers nothing of the alleged incident, thinks the story makes no sense, and was pressured by friends to get in line behind Chrissy.

Wow. So egregious that CBS News stepped in with their re-write.

Criminal Subpoenas For Trump's State, Federal Tax Returns

Per the Times, 

8 Years of Trump Tax Returns Are Subpoenaed by Manhattan D.A.

The pretext is an investigation of the Stormy Daniels payoffs.

My guess is that a criminal subpoena is harder to fight but secrecy rules also make it harder to leak without more dramatic consequences. But what do I know?

 

Ready For Some Football!

Actually I'm getting ready for some baseball. October baseball, especially.

The Dem Debate

The WaPo wraps up the big Dem debate.

Julian Castro tried for a break-out Kamala Harris moment by going after Joe Biden and ended up with egg on his face. This won't help his bid to be someone's VP and put Texas in play but Rude, Loud and Wrong should get him a gig on MSNBC.

Beto promised to Grab All The Guns but his party won't be in-line skating behind him. Even Democrats have figured out that its a bad idea if their Presidential candidates are running on a platform that picks up votes in CA and NY but hurts them in PA, MI, WI, FL, and more. Blame the Electoral College!

Wyden's New Capital Gains Tax Scheme

Se. Wyden (D, OR) released more details (CNBC, WSJ) of his plan to revise the capital gains tax and apply it to a mark-to-market of some assets. Valuing illiquid assets and non-marketable securities is a puzzle.

Figuring out annual values is straightforward for stocks and other tradable assets but trickier for private businesses, collectibles and commercial real estate.Mr. Wyden proposes to let holders of those illiquid, nontradable assets defer their tax bill until they sell assets or transfer them through gift or death. But they would face an additional charge designed to eliminate the benefit of deferral and the plan outlines options for calculating it.

That will be simple! Does it mean the Koch Brother defers taxes until death? Presumably. I don't see how that will fly with the Dems who are holding out for an annual public flogging.

I had suggested something similar last January. Wyden has lower thresholds now than he had mooted in the past - Warren's wealth tax is meant to kick in at $50MM and Wyden had a figure in mind of $43MM. His new threshold is $10MM of assets, with exclusions of up to $2MM for a residence and $3MM for retirement accounts. So as a practical matter, the threshold will be around $15MM for most (Some tech geek renting a place in San Fran or Manhattan will cash out his IPO at age 26, pocket a bundle and have no exclusions. Bummer, but I'm over it. And the tech geek is over it, too, if he buys an excludable residence.)

I had also noted that to avoid any liquidity crunch for the taxpayer some sort of deferred payment plan would make sense. Wyden is on the same page:

The tax would also apply to built-up gains on existing assets, after a deduction for losses, potentially triggering significant tax bills for billionaires who built their fortunes over the past few decades. That would include the world’s richest person, Amazon.com Inc. founder Jeff Bezos, Mr. Wyden said in an interview Wednesday.

Levies on past gains would be payable over a to-be-determined transition period, perhaps at discounted rates. So someone who bought $20 million of stock in 1990 that is now worth $50 million would face taxes on that $30 million gain. In that sense, Mr. Wyden’s plan resembles a one-time wealth tax President Trump proposed in 1999.

Obviously none of this is happening under Trump and with a Republican Senate, but who knows what 2021 will bring? As to applying the revenue, estimated to be at least $1.5 trillion over then years, Sen. Wyden is staid and lacks the "More Free Everything!" vision of the Dem Presidential candidates. He proposes dedicating the funds to Social Security. Boring! By way of contrast Warren wants to use $700 million of her wealth tax to pay off student loans, because heaven knows young college grads need more financial assistance sent there way than, oh, struggling inner-city school kids.

Well. I think tax hikes are coming and frankly, I'm with Willie Sutton on this one - let's tax where the money is, which is lightly-if-ever taxed capital gains.

Our Gal Val, Back In The News

Valerie Plame is back in the news and drawing a downbeat Fact Check from Glenn Kessler of the WaPo.

Old times! In fact, I feel like a recovering alcoholic holding a bottle of Johnnie Walker Blue. But let me see if I can stop at two:

First, as CIA Acting General Counsel John Rizzo eventually claimed in his 2014 book, and as Bob Woodward, Andrea Mitchell and Dana Priest had reported years earlier, Plame's "outing" was just not that big a deal in terms of national security or personal danger. A Rizzo excerpt:

Secondly, what drove this investigation? Why did Special Counsel Fitzgerald look so hard at the White House yet ignore the obvious, easily detected, unconfessed leaking from Armitage (and probably Powell, and others) from State?

I say it was a mini-Deep State Coup. Democrats allied with moderate Republicans such as Comey in a DoJ revolt intended to pare back or eliminate Dick Cheney. Fitzgerald's team took it in when Richard Armitage of State admitted he leaked to Novak. It took the sleuths at the AP to obtain Armitage's appointment calendar for June 2003 and see a meeting with Woodward. Pretty heavy investigative work!

As a recap, Cheney's man at Doj, John Yoo, left the Office of Legal Counsel in June 2003 and was replaced by Jack Goldsmith. Goldsmith withdrew the OLC opinion backing enhanced interrogation and put the warrantless surveillance program under a microscope. By December the DoJ was in something like a revolt over Cheny's handling of that, which culminated in the famous Comey/Ashcroft/Card hospital room showdown in March 2004.

And during all this, the DoJ decides (Oct 2003) to take the Plame referral seriously and actually investigate the leak Rizzo laughed off. By December, Comey was appointing Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel. The target was Cheney, not Bush, not Rove and most assuredly not "the truth" about who leaked what.

BONUS (But I can quit anytime): Why did Armitage leak at all? Surely it wasn't to punish Wilson? No, it wasn't, and stop calling me Shirley. In the summer of 2003 a dispute raged about who had said what and when about Saddam's WMDs and nuclear aspirations. The gist of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate had been made public. The CIA (with other intel groups) came down on the side of "Definitely maybe" as to whether Iraq was a nuclear threat. The State Department's INR had dissented, but that was lost in a footnote. Prophets without honor!

So when the dispute raged in June 2003 Armitage discussed with his old pals Novak and Woodward that tidbit about the CIA research effort - the CIA had cobbled together a trip to Niger that was never to going to be conclusive, sent off some retired ambassador (sponsored by his wife!) and come back with an inconclusive report. Did Armitage describe the CIA effort with the phrase "clown show"? We can only hope. But the mention of the wife's role was not meant as punishment; it was meant as a punchline.

JUST SAY NO: Don't get me started on the Tim Russert/Andrea Mitchell / David Gregory cover-up. Press Secretary Ari Fleischer testifed he leaked to reporters John Dickerson and David Gregory of NBC News, Tim Russert's underling. OK, it was Fleischer's last week on the job, he had a lot going on and he might have been wrong (Dickerson says he was, about him anyway) but... IF he leaked to Gregory there was time for Gregory to mention this to Russert, who might have then tried to confirm it in a call with Libby.

Since Libby was charged with lying about his chat with Russert (Libby said Russert mentioned WIlson's wife, Russert denied it), we can be sure that Relentless Truth Seeker Fitzgerald interviewed Gregory and nailed down his story, right?

Wrong. Dickerson says he was never formally questioned. As best I know, Gregory has never denied Fleischer's version. In retrospect, this transcript of a post-indictment Russert program reads like a hostage video, with everyone locking in their cover story. Here is Gregory:

GREGORY: And it is interesting--it's also interesting, I should just point out, that nobody called me at any point, which is unfortunately...
WILLIAMS: Apparently not.
GREGORY: ...not the point.
RUSSERT: Does anybody ever?
GREGORY: But I just wanted to note that.
RUSSERT: I've been meaning to talk to you about that.

Nobody called him, har de har. But of course, Fleiacher's testimony was that their chat was face to face, not a phone call. 

But no follow-up, again, as best I know.

I MEAN IT NOW: I am completely confident that you have seen this idea no where else, and lucky you: the issue of Valerie Plame's "covert" status hinges on the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. The gist: she would need both classified status (check) and "service abroad" in the prior five years (Fog!).

So - is "service abroad" a quick trip overseas, or a formal posting? Unlitigated! However, Ms. Plame's pension benefit gets an upward adjustment for her "overseas service" spanning "six years, one month and 29 days".

So the CIA service record certainly tracks their notion of overseas service. Was the last date within five years of her outing? We don't know, in part because Special Counsel Fitzgerald chose to hide that factoid. And why would he hide it? Hard to see including a comment on her final date of overseas service as hurting either national security or his case, especially since he offered as a substitute the assurance she had flown overseas to Jordan on CIA business within the past five years.

It makes me think that the final overseas service date for which she got credit was outside the five year time frame. One more thing we won't know, unless someone wants to ask Candidate Plame. (She'll cite national security and duck it, but try anyway!)

Our Gal Val, Back In The News

Valerie Plame is back in the news and drawing a downbeat Fact Check from Glenn Kessler of the WaPo.

Old times! In fact, I feel like a recovering alcoholic holding a bottle of Johnnie Walker Blue. But let me see if I can stop at two:

First, as CIA Acting General Counsel John Rizzo eventually claimed in his 2014 book, and as Bob Woodward, Andrea Mitchell and Dana Priest had reported years earlier, Plame's "outing" was just not that big a deal in terms of national security or personal danger. A Rizzo excerpt:

Secondly, what drove this investigation? Why did Special Counsel Fitzgerald look so hard at the White House yet ignore the obvious, easily detected, unconfessed leaking from Armitage (and probably Powell, and others) from State?

I say it was a mini-Deep State Coup. Democrats allied with moderate Republicans such as Comey in a DoJ revolt intended to pare back or eliminate Dick Cheney. Fitzgerald's team took it in when Richard Armitage of State admitted he leaked to Novak. It took the sleuths at the AP to obtain Armitage's appointment calendar for June 2003 and see a meeting with Woodward. Pretty heavy investigative work!

As a recap, Cheney's man at Doj, John Yoo, left the Office of Legal Counsel in June 2003 and was replaced by Jack Goldsmith. Goldsmith withdrew the OLC opinion backing enhanced interrogation and put the warrantless surveillance program under a microscope. By December the DoJ was in something like a revolt over Cheny's handling of that, which culminated in the famous Comey/Ashcroft/Card hospital room showdown in March 2004.

And during all this, the DoJ decides (Oct 2003) to take the Plame referral seriously and actually investigate the leak Rizzo laughed off. By December, Comey was appointing Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel. The target was Cheney, not Bush, not Rove and most assuredly not "the truth" about who leaked what.

BONUS (But I can quit anytime): Why did Armitage leak at all? Surely it wasn't to punish Wilson? No, it wasn't, and stop calling me Shirley. In the summer of 2003 a dispute raged about who had said what and when about Saddam's WMDs and nuclear aspirations. The gist of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate had been made public. The CIA (with other intel groups) came down on the side of "Definitely maybe" as to whether Iraq was a nuclear threat. The State Department's INR had dissented, but that was lost in a footnote. Prophets without honor!

So when the dispute raged in June 2003 Armitage discussed with his old pals Novak and Woodward that tidbit about the CIA research effort - the CIA had cobbled together a trip to Niger that was never to going to be conclusive, sent off some retired ambassador (sponsored by his wife!) and come back with an inconclusive report. Did Armitage describe the CIA effort with the phrase "clown show"? We can only hope. But the mention of the wife's role was not meant as punishment; it was meant as a punchline.

Our Gal Val, Back In The News

Valerie Plame is back in the news and drawing a downbeat Fact Check from Glenn Kessler of the WaPo.

Old times! In fact, I feel like a recovering alcoholic holding a bottle of Johnnie Walker Blue. But let me see if I can stop at two:

First, as CIA Acting General Counsel John Rizzo eventually claimed in his 2014 book, and as Bob Woodward, Andrea Mitchell and Dana Priest had reported years earlier, Plame's "outing" was just not that big a deal in terms of national security or personal danger. A Rizzo excerpt:

Secondly, what drove this investigation? Why did Special Counsel Fitzgerald look so hard at the White House yet ignore the obvious, easily detected, unconfessed leaking from Armitage (and probably Powell, and others) from State?

I say it was a mini-Deep State Coup. Democrats allied with moderate Republicans such as Comey in a DoJ revolt intended to pare back or eliminate Dick Cheney. Fitzgerald's team took it in when Richard Armitage of State admitted he leaked to Novak. It took the sleuths at the AP to obtain Armitage's appointment calendar for June 2003 and see a meeting with Woodward. Pretty heavy investigative work!

As a recap, Cheney's man at Doj, John Yoo, left the Office of Legal Counsel in June 2003 and was replaced by Jack Goldsmith. Goldsmith withdrew the OLC opinion backing enhanced interrogation and put the warrantless surveillance program under a microscope. By December the DoJ was in something like a revolt over Cheny's handling of that, which culminated in the famous Comey/Ashcroft/Card hospital room showdown in March 2004.

And during all this, the DoJ decides (Oct 2003) to take the Plame referral seriously and actually investigate the leak Rizzo laughed off. By December, Comey was appointing Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel. The target was Cheney, not Bush, not Rove and most assuredly not "the truth" about who leaked what.

BONUS (But I can quit anytime): Why did Armitage leak at all? Surely it wasn't to punish Wilson? No, it wasn't, and stop calling me Shirley. In the summer of 2003 a dispute raged about who had said what and when about Saddam's WMDs and nuclear aspirations. The gist of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate had been made public. The CIA (with other intel groups) came down on the side of "Definitely maybe" as to whether Iraq was a nuclear threat. The State Department's INR had dissented, but that was lost in a footnote. Prophets without honor!

So when the dispute raged in June 2003 Armitage discussed with his old pals Novak and Woodward that tidbit about the CIA research effort - the CIA had cobbled together a trip to Niger that was never to going to be conclusive, sent off some retired ambassador (sponsored by his wife!) and come back with an inconclusive report. Did Armitage describe the CIA effort with the phrase "clown show"? We can only hope. But the mention of the wife's role was not meant as punishment; it was meant as a punchline.

Back To Brexit

As we approach the final countdown on Brexit, here is flow chart of possible scenarios. It's the sort of thing we normally enjoy in December as the NFL PLayoffs come into focus and forty-seven teams jockey for eleventy spots.

 

Send Better Nukes!

Damn it, we can't nuke hurricanes and now we can't even nuke climate change.

The problem? US electric production is only responsible for about a quarter of US greenhouse gas emissions. Even if we went all-in on nuclear, hydropower and other renewables we'd have a lot of carbon left over in transportation, agriculture, industry, and residential/commercial. Electric heat for buildings and electric cars could shift some of the load but I don't think people will be putting nuclear powered steam generators in Manhattan to heat office buildings. Maybe!

Saturday Afternoon

The Maize and Blue blow. 24 point underdog Army is tied with Michigan with 6 minutes to play.

Make America Think Harder

I'm holding out hope for Yang-Williamson 2020. Yang may be right about increasing automation eventually leading to widespread unemployment (as per Vonnegut's 1952 "Player Piano") but it is a harder sell with unemployment at 3.7%.

Vox Unpopuli

Dylan Matthews of Vox boldly goes where no prog has gone before and learns about guns. Good effort, although I think the coverage of double action/single action was just showing off.

He does grasp the cosmetic nature of the "assault weapons" discussion, which gives me an excuse to recycle this pic of the Ruger Min-14 Tactical versus the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch. Per the proposed House Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 the Tactical is banned (per Appendix A, ifg I am following correctly); the John Wayne prop (OK, with a magazine protruding) is all aces. Fine, ban the Tactical and potential buyers will hit their gun stores with "I'm only here for the Ranch".

Does any of this change Mr. Matthews mind on anything? He does not say but let's not underestimate the power of knowledge - Leah Libresco of 538 and the WaPo surprised herself after doing some homework on gun control.

RECYCLING!

Climate Change Is The New Gay Marriage - Discuss

Politico argues that both parties are now divided on climate change: Republicans between the "What problem?" and "OK, something's happening" and the Democrats between "Something is happening and we need to get ahead of it" and the Green New Dealers "Yea, a crisis so great we must adopt every bad socialist idea ever!".

In gthe longer run the moderate Dems are going to look good (IMHO) but in 2020 Trump specifically and Republicans generally will run against AOC and Climate Madness.

DO LET ME ADD: "Moderate" Dems will eventually adopt ideas such as those promoted by Presidential candidate Andrew Yang and Go Nuclear. If the house is on fire you don't worry about water damage and whether the fire extinguisher output will stain or stink up the furniture.

Labor Day

How are you, fellow proles?

Taxing Wealth, One Way Or Another

The WSJ (MSN bootleg here) had a recent story about different Democrat plans to tax wealth:

Democrats’ Emerging Tax Idea: Look Beyond Income, Target Wealth

Lawmakers and 2020 candidates offer a range of options focused on capturing some of the trillions of dollars in assets belonging to the nation’s richest

The gist seems to be to go after unrealized capital gains:

At the end of 2017, U.S. households had $3.8 trillion in unrealized gains in stocks and investment funds, plus more in real estate, private businesses and artwork, according to the Economic Innovation Group, a nonprofit focused on bringing investment to low-income areas. Most of the value of estates over $100 million consists of unrealized gains, said a 2013 Federal Reserve study. Much has never been touched by individual income taxes and may never be.

Democrats are eager to tap that mountain of wealth to finance priorities such as expanding health-insurance coverage, combating climate change and aiding low-income households. Their ideas range from new rules on inherited assets, to a plan by Sen. Ron Wyden for annual taxes on unrealized gains, to a proposal from Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s to tax wealth itself. These come atop more conventional proposals to raise income taxes and expand estate taxes.

Ahh, well! I was talking this up myself last January.

In brief, above a high net worth threshold (eg, $50MM) impose mark-to-market accounting to end the eternal deferral of unrealized capital gains taxes. But to avoid forced sales to pay the tax bill (and to create a buffer account against possible future losses) allow deferred payment of the taxes over ten years. The deferral is similar in spirit to the estate tax rule allowing a fourteen year deferral when the main estate asset is a business but a ten year period falls within the CBO budget assessment rules.

Public securities are easily valued. Real estate and private companies (eg, Koch Industries and many tech start-ups) are routinely valued by lenders and other marker professionals. Art collections are routinely assessed by insurers or other experts. Maybe re-assessment for tax purposes are bi-annually or even less frequent, just for simplicity, but these problems are easily solved (and especially easily for me, since I'm just typing and hand-waving in my PJs.)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D) is ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee and is working on his ideas.

A similar idea was described in a 2015 paper by David Miller.

Lost Track Of Time

OK, here we go. I missed a day or two in there.

Sunday Excitement

Here we go again.

Somewhere on my To-Do list is to research this Russian floating power station.

Some background here. Lots of design ideas out there.

Forbes article on China's entry.

US Dept. of Energy under Steve Perry says "Don't Stop Believing".

NuScale, up in Oregon, has a design. More from DoE. NuScale has Phases 2 and 3 design approvals from the NRC.

Lots to take in on modular nuclear reactors.

Future Chaos Today

Those who are awaiting the final push to the summit of Peak Crazy may agree that an early exit for RBG will get us there.

Here's hoping she makes it to 2021.

Where's The Beef?

The meatless diet can be added to the won't-be-happening list.

Greenland Debate Turns Icy

Trump to snub Denmark because their PM had the same reaction the idea of the US purchasing Greenland as everyone else?

Cue "I Started A Joke".

Circling Back Towards Sanity?

Democratic entrants in the "Whose The Wokest of Them All - 2020" competition are backpedaling a bit on their support for Medicare For All. Harry Reid, a dinosaur but not a DINO, blasts their open borders posturing. And other lonely moderate Democrats worry about their current pandering to suburban voters on gun control. He makes the same seemingly obvious point I've made - winning votes in CA, NY and MA doesn't help the Democrats; losing votes in PA, MI and WI hurts them:

But moderates fear that Democrats pushing the most sweeping ideas risk alienating centrist voters who are ambivalent or uneasy about President Donald Trump's tumultuous term.

 

"Political concerns about gun safety measures aren't as acute as they were in 2000, but they're not completely gone," said Matt Bennett, executive vice president for public affairs at Third Way, a centrist Democratic group. "Even a diminished NRA is dangerous. More importantly, we don't want to write Trump's ads for him. Overreaching on an issue as charged as this is a bad idea in an epochal election like this one. It won't help us win the blue wall states we need to defeat Trump, and it certainly won't help us win states like Colorado, Arizona, Maine and Alabama to give a Democratic president a governing majority in the Senate."

Common sense is not as common as people think.

Defending The Founding Fathers

Rich Lowry takes on the NY Times 1619 production, which explained that the US revolution was motivated by a desire to avoid the British abolitionists. He has them outnumbered.

Frequently Unasked Questions: This NY Times 1619 project has a broad scope and its mission is to show that America was founded on slavery, built by slaves and remains hideously racist today. My queston - what is the involvement of Times editor Sarah Jeong, who quite famously hates white people (but its OK, because progressive reasons.)

Campaign Disclosure Follies

FEC campaign donation disclosure rules seem to require the public release of all donors, even as small as $1, who contribute through a conduit like ActBlue.

I expect quick action to change this, despite the doxxing by the Castro brothers of Trump donors.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I have to check whether my donations to Marianne Williamson and Amy Klobuchar went through. I also can't remember if I gave in to my desire to list my occupation as "Astronaut".

Sunday Action

Apropos of nothing:

Overheard in a Starbucks:

Disgruntled Biden backer nostalgic for a past than never was: Can you remind me what 'venti' means?

Warren-backing barista: It means my degree in Fine Arts landed me this gig.

Roll, Beto Roll

Beto has re-booted his campaign and now I'm booting too:

The Daily 202: The newest purity test for Democrats is whether to mandate assault weapons buybacks

Oh, brother.

Former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke unveiled a detailed gun-control proposal this morning that calls for a “mandatory buyback program for assault weapons and a voluntary buyback program for handguns.” Critics say this would amount to government confiscation of firearms that people have bought legally. O’Rourke proposes an increase in the excise tax on gun manufacturers and stiff fines on gun traffickers to enable the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to purchase all the assault weapons he wants to ban. Individuals who fail to sell their assault rifles would then face fines.

O’Rourke is taking this hard line as he restarts his campaign nearly two weeks after 22 people were massacred at a Walmart in his hometown of El Paso, the deadliest attack against the Latino community in American history. The former congressman’s plan also calls for creating a nationwide gun licensing system. “If at this moment we do not wake up to this threat, then we, as a country, will die in our sleep,” O’Rourke said in an emotional half-hour speech yesterday.

Oh, brother brother.

First, as a matter of rhetoric I hate his speechwriter's decision to go with 'If we don't wake up to this threat, we will die in our sleep from gun violence'. Sure, sleep, wake, got it. But its a clash of imagery - what, I'm going to get shot while I'm asleep? How? During a home invasion? Why would I agree to disarm after having that idea put in my head?

And anyway, dying in one's sleep is an aspiration! What's the old folk wisdom? "I want to die in my sleep like my uncle, not screaming like terror like the passengers in his car".

As to the politics, this proposal ranks up their with open borders and free health café for undocumented future Democrats. Do Beto, Liz Warren and others think they can win the Presidency (and hold the House) by boosting their support in California, New York and Massachusetts while cratering it in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin? Do they even remember the idea of "swing states" or are they moving left so fast they think they've already abolished the Electoral College?

The crazy is coming faster then ever in the Dem nominating process. And wait until a few of the moderates drop out and the rest (like Beto) reposition. Hang on!

Thursday Afternoon

I'm on tilt here.

OK, here we go: Ebola "cured-ish", if treatment is early. This is a BFD, and to whom do we owe thanks? The US taxpayer and, well, terrorism-inspired paranoia.

From the Times:

A Cure for Ebola? Two New Treatments Prove Highly Effective in Congo

The therapies saved roughly 90 percent of the patients who were newly infected, a turning point in the decades-long fight against the virus.

...

REGN-EB3 is made by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals of Tarrytown, N.Y., which also makes other antibody treatments. Dr. Fauci’s institute, which is part of the National Institutes of Health, developed mAb114 and licensed production last year to Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, a Miami company.

[LONG Skip and...]

Development of the new treatments was supported by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services concerned with fighting chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats, and pandemic diseases.

Your tax dollars at work! In partnership with two private companies, so something for everyone. Come 2021 President Bernie will be investigating these companies and fining or jailing them for not having finished this sooner, but let's focus on the now. Here is HHS announcing the new trial last year:

Actions under Project BioShield could protect health from bioterrorism, naturally occurring outbreaks

 

Hundreds of thousands of Americans could be protected from or treated for Ebola infections through the first purchase of vaccines and therapeutic drugs by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA ), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response  (ASPR) within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The vaccines and drugs are the first for Ebola to receive Project BioShield  funding which supports late-stage development toward licensure and stockpile purchases.

 

“Today we are prepared to add four Ebola countermeasures to the stockpile whereas three years ago, very few products were even in early stages of development,” BARDA Director Rick Bright, Ph.D., said. “This marks a pivotal moment in U.S. and global preparedness for future public health emergencies from viral hemorrhagic fevers like Ebola. We reached this point at unprecedented speed, and that’s a direct result of innovative approaches to product development and to partnering across the U.S. government, other nations, and private industry.”

 

Ebola  is considered a potential bioterrorism threat by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security as well as a naturally occurring public health threat. Natural Ebola outbreaks occur most often in African countries, the most recent, from 2014 through 2016. According to the World Health Organization, during that outbreak more than 28,600 cases of Ebola virus infection were suspected, probable or confirmed and more than 11,000 people died.

Don't run out and buy Regeneron (REGN) stock, however- no one is sure whether or how they will make money on this.

And the other winner, Ridgeback Biotherapeutics? As best I can tell it is owned and funded by a doctor and his wife, a health care investor, both of whom seem to have struck it rich as hedge fund heroes and are running this company to do good:

Headquartered in Miami, Florida, Ridgeback Biotherapeutics is a privately held, majority woman owned biotechnology company focused on orphan and infectious diseases.  Life to date, all funding for Ridgeback Biotherapeutics has originated from Wayne and Wendy Holman; two science driven individuals who invest in technologies that they believe will make the world a better place.  The team at Ridgeback is dedicated to working toward finding life-saving and life changing solutions for patients and diseases that need champions.

Yeah, take THAT, Bill and Melinda Gates!

OK, good for them, good for us, and thank you. (Now, Bernie, lock 'em up, amirite!)

 

 

Neither Trump Nor Epstein! Fredo Breaks Bad!

Vacationing Chris 'Fredo' Cuomo captured a news cycle by, well, threatening to throw it down some stairs.

It's August and this is SO much more fun than writing about Jeffrey Epstein, Orange Man Bad, mass shootings, gun laws, tariffs, Hong Kong protestors about to be massacred, or most news, actually. (I saw a tweet today: "Breaking News will continue until morale improves.")

The raging controversy - is "Fredo" an ethnic slur with specific anti-Italian connotations, or just an off-the-shelf insult suitable for any weak, underachieving sibling like Fredo Cuomo?

Not really a tough call - before dropping 25 f-bombs and REALLY leaning into his DeNiro/Pacino Mafia thug impression, Cuomo explained the offense:

CHRIS CUOMO: No, punk ass bitches from the right call me Fredo. My name is Chris Cuomo, I’m an anchor on CNN.

Fredo is from The Godfather. He was that weak brother. And they use it as an Italian aspersion. Any of you Italian?

Please. The idea that "Fredo" implies Italians are class-less Mafia thugs didn't seem to bother him. Although he probably hears "Fredo" a lot, both on-air and In Real Life, so he might be especially sensitive to it.

The Captain has more. 

Sunday Chit-Chat, or, I Love A Locked Room Mystery

My keen nose for news is right on the pulse of the nation and I have an idea that the Jeffrey Epstein "suicide" is on people's minds.

The left has adopted Epstein as their "Get Trump" replacement for Russian collusion and the right has loathed the Clintons for decades, so there is plenty of energy for a long, long look. I just wonder who has the credibility to placate both sides with whatever story the establishment cobbles together. This could be (probably will be!) the JFK/Warren Commission of our generation.

BONUS ERRATA: I want to save these links on mass shootings:

Vox on the different databases;

Mass Shootings aren't becoming more common;

And a Dem panel yesterday on gun control. That should be interesting, by which I mean terrifying in a detached from reality way.

This screams for more background:

And before she spoke at the forum, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts unveiled a series of proposals to address gun violence, with an ambitious goal for her presidency: reducing gun deaths by 80 percent.

Normally the progressives and the Times include suicides in "gun deaths" to inflate the figures. Suicides are about 65% of total gun deaths. Short of confiscation, I can't imagine how Warren cuts suicides by 80%, so... my guess is Warren us talking about homicides for purposes of headlining a goal we will describe as "ambitious".

I have not one but two outside the box ideas on the current gun debate. First, liberals will turn against Red Flag laws when creative inner city DAs and police chiefs start using them on urban drug gangs.

Second, one day, maybe soon, libs will realize that the headline grabbing "mass shooting" deaths average about 100 per year. They make news because the randomness threatens the pleasant, middle-class folks who moved to a nice suburb like Newtown or Parkland to get away from urban crime (hear the dog whistle?!?). Woke Dems will demand a change in the focus without somehow implicating urban drug gangs, and good luck to them.

A the Unifying Thread: Urban gun violence and Central American refugees are linked by our War on Drugs. What's the exit strategy?

I Predict This Will Prove To Be An Open-Carry Train Wreck

This news report about a possible mass shooter in a Missouri WalMArt is being spun by some as "good guy with gun stops bad guy with gun".

IMHO that won't hold up. The real story will be "Gun nut exercising his Missouri open-carry rights terrorizes a WalMart, is lucky he wasn't shot". I predict his narrative will be, "We all learned WalMArts are dangerous so I armored up and gunned up to protect myself and others". 

A dark horse - a lefty provacateur making a point about the problems with open carry. I doubt a lefty has the props or the chops for a stunt like this.

Time will tell, although this 5 Fast Facts came in after my bets were down on Twitter.

NOBODY LIKES AN 'I TOLD YO SO': So nobody will like this:

Armed Man Who Caused Panic at Missouri Walmart Said It Was 2nd Amendment Test, Authorities Say

Groan. I'm on your side, buddy. Try being on my side.

The Uneasy Compromise Of Campaign Finance Disclosure Is Ruptured

Why did it take so long for this to become a Resistance tactic?

Joaquin Castro Posts Names, Employers Of Trump Donors

Democratic Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro on Monday tweeted the names and employers of 44 San Antonio residents who donated the federal maximum to President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign.

Castro, whose district includes much of San Antonio, claimed the donors “are fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic immigrants as ‘invaders.'” Castro is the twin brother of Democratic presidential candidate Julian Castro and chairs his presidential campaign.

In an era where Administration officials and prominent Republicans are being mobbed and chased out of restaurants (not to mention shot at on ballfields) one wonders where Castro thought this would lead.

Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh is demanding Castro delete the post.

“Democrats want to talk about inciting violence? This naming of private citizens and their employers is reckless and irresponsible. He is endangering the safety of people he is supposed to be representing,” Murtaugh told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Yes.

Legally the FEC database is public record and the Congressman seems to be on solid ground. But ethically? These campaign finance disclosure rules are meant as a check on "special interests" and the politicians who might end up with reveal conflicts of interest. They are NOT meant to allow incumbents to stir up their supporters and silence the opposition.

I would say that particular bit of etiquette has been widely observed. I can remember Brendan Eich, formerly and famously of Mozilla, was outed as a Prop 8 financial supporter opposed to gay marriage and lost his Silicon Valley job. Other public examples escape me.

Now, my strong impression is that many people balance their disclosable campaign contributions with their personal and/or professional lives. Media members don't seem to put their money where there mouths and keyboards are, presumably to avoid documentation of their preferences. And I suspect I have read that aspiring academics should avoid contributing to Republicans, just in case a review board peeks at the FEC database.

But if the words "chilling effect" still have meaning, what Castro has done here is way over the line. Finance disclosure laws exist in tension with the principle of a private ballot. Especially in this day and age of easily accessed electronic databases, We the People simply won't accept new rules requiring disclosure. Good luck, for example, expanding the disclosure rules on "dark money" PACs.

ERRATA: I am drawing a blank but some new proposed rule on disclosure was recently aired and conservatives objected that it would simply facilitate CNN's doxxing of everyone whose politics they found objectionable. Can't remember more, but it would tie in here nicely.

Let's Assault Logic

The NY Post calls for an assault weapons ban based on, well, hmm:

Come up with answers. Now. Beginning with the return of an assault weapons ban.

We know: That label doesn’t actually describe a clear class of guns. And that some studies show that the last ban, in effect from 1994 to 2004, had a limited impact. But that simply means the next ban should be better written, with a clear definition focused on factors like firepower — rate of fire, muzzle velocity, etc. — not on cosmetic features.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right to own “guns in common use.” That doesn’t cover the semiautomatic weapons regularly used only in mass shootings.

Charles Cooke of NR steps into the breach:

The New York Post’s editorial board has written a fawning open letter to President Trump in which it asks him to “ban assault weapons now.” It is, from start to finish, a profoundly lazy, impressively ignorant, and doggedly cliché-ridden piece of work that at no point even attempts to deal seriously with the arguments that it believes it is refuting.

Put him down as "Undecided".

Its primary flaw is a chronic — perhaps even proud — lack of precision. The editors acknowledge that the term “assault weapon” “doesn’t actually describe a clear class of guns,” but then demand that the ban they covet be predicated upon “a clear definition focused on factors like firepower — rate of fire, muzzle velocity, etc. — not on cosmetic features.” But there is a reason that both state-level bans and the now-expired 1994 federal ban were cosmetic in nature, and that reason is that the sorts of rifles that the Post wants banned do not differ either in their “rate of fire” or “muzzle velocity” from the sorts of guns that the Post does not want to ban.

The Post’s editors insist that they have no interest in taking away weapons from people “who hunt or keep guns for self-defense.” But that is exactly what their approach would do. The AR-15 and AK-47 — the guns used in Dayton and El Paso respectively — both have exactly the same “rate of fire” as does every other semi-automatic firearm on sale in America. 

Libs should try to understand this "assault weapons" issue and then either call for a ban on ALL semiautomatic rifles with easily detachable magazines, or they should move on.

But they won't.

FWIW: My fave Scary/Not Scary pic.

Oh, if Kirsten Gillibrand could please do her predictable gun control posturing on assault weapons and have someone respond "I'm only here for the Ranch." Here's hoping!

Multiple Mass Shooting Open Thread

Resuming one of the great brain-locked debates of this last few decades.

Evolve Or Die!

The NY Times tells us that young Republicans want a stronger stance on climate change. Help is on the way - Politico talks about Republicans in Congress looking for something stronger than outright denialism - but... that Dem wave last fall swept away a lot of Republican moderates, including climate moderates.

Ad to the youth movement, old timers like me can remember when leftists seized on any available problem and insisted the only possible solution was massive government regulation. In that spirit, here is Paul Krugman, circa 1998, bashing Al Gore's 'Earth in the Balance" for its ignorance of market-oriented solutions to pollution problems.

I will say that the Green New Deal has been successful in moving the Overton Window, so once far-out ideas now seem moderate by comparison. And speaking of far-out (or otherwise), here is Rep advisor Greg Mankiw advocating a revenue-neutral carbon tax back in 2007. A globally coordinated tax, no less! Here in the US they suggested an off-setting cut in the payroll tax. That somewhat covers the apparently regressive nature of the carbon tax but leaves retirees somewhat high and dry.

From a different direction, Tyler Cowen notes that if the US and Europe cut back on their use of oil and coal the price will drop. That will make it less economically attractive for developing nations to switch to other technologies, unless those new technologies are price competitive on their own merits.

I stand by my earlier Bold Prediction: China is has major coastal cities and is most threatened by climate change; they will engage in pre-emptive unilateral geo-engineering if the world's climate becomes increasingly dire. The good news being, here in the US we will neither die nor need to make any decisions.

Seven Up!

Seven Dem hopefuls have qualified for the next debate. Three more look like and another three are, like Mets, clinging to what will prove to be a false hope.

Three other candidates are very close: The former housing secretary Julián Castro and the entrepreneur Andrew Yang have surpassed 130,000 donations and each have three of the four qualifying polls they need, while Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota has met the polling threshold and has about 120,000 donors.

Beyond them, only three candidates have even a single qualifying poll to their name: the impeachment activist Tom Steyer (2 polls), Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii (1) and former Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado (1).

Yang and Castro had good nights at the debate so their poll numbers shouldn't go down. 10,000 new donors for Klobuchar? Should be easy. [So easy she announced Friday she is already there.]

As to Kristen Gillibrand, if her judgment is so poor she thought she could successfully misrepresent a dusty old op-ed to attack Joe Biden she deserves to be left behind.

This Is Why We Watch - Biden v. Inslee

My pick for the debate highlight was too silly to make the news but here we go: VP Joe Biden and Gov. Inslee were grappling on energy policy and climate change. Inslee was insisting that time is running out and we had to take BOLD STEPS NOW, leading to this classic exchange:

INSLEE: ...I've heard you say that we need a realistic plan. Here's what I believe...

BIDEN: No, I didn't say that.

We can't put up realistic plans, this is a Democratic debate!

Belated Fight Night II Open Thread

My goodness.

Joseph Mifsud, Maltese Man of Mystery

Right wing conspiracists are hanging their hat on Joseph Mifsud and I welcome the company! Eric Felten, writing for Real Clear Investigations, leads with the Cong. Jim Jordan questioning about Prof. Mifsud at the Mueller hearing, so let's include that video. From Mr. Felten, excerpting Jordan/Mueller:

“Did you interview Mifsud?”

“Can't get into that.”

“Is Mifsud Western intelligence or Russian intelligence?”

 “Can't get into that.”

That’s an awfully consequential question to be outside the special counsel’s purview, one consequential enough to be worth asking until an answer can be found.

Lee Smith, also writing for Real Clear Investigations, provided lots of background on Mifsud last May 2018. My fave from that article: Mifsud denies being an MI6 "agent", which fans of the genre (but not all legacy journalists) understand is quite different from being an MI6 "asset".

And the latest hook is the failure of Mueller to charge Mifsud with false statements, even though Mueller had no problem indicting unreachable Russians in Lenningrad and other Americans closer to home. Why so shy about the guy whose interactions with Papadopoluos ostensibly triggered Crossfire Hurricane? Who knows? One day Mifsud may be singing a song under the bright Congressional lights and we'll be reading about the Maltese Canary.

But do let me highlight a problem faced by Mueller and noted by Mr. Felten: charging both Papadopoulos and Mifsud with false statements may have been challenging:

Not so, said Mifsud in February 2017 when FBI agents interviewed him in the lobby of a Washington hotel. As Mueller recounted it in his report, Mifsud “denied that he had advance knowledge that Russia was in possession of emails damaging to candidate Clinton, stating that he and Papadopoulos had discussed cybersecurity and hacking as a larger issue and that Papadopoulos must have misunderstood their conversation.” The special counsel blamed Papadopoulos’ dissembling for disabling the FBI agents’ ability to get the goods on Mifsud: “The false information and omissions in Papadopoulos's January 2017 interview undermined investigators' ability to challenge Mifsud when he made these inaccurate statements.”

Maybe Mifsud was telling the truth. After all, the evidence to the contrary is supplied by someone who has done (a very little) time in jail for telling federal officials falsehoods. Which would at least explain why the special counsel did so little to pursue the professor. Having wrung a confession out of Papadopoulos for false statements about Mifsud, the special counsel’s team may have anticipated the difficulty they would face basing accusations against Mifsud on Papadopoulos’ say-so.

 

Sunday Morning

I'm out of ammo as the Yankees and Red Sox open a one game series tonight.

Hacking The Next Election

What should we do about likely Russian interference in the next election? Personally, I think it would be helpful if the Democrats acknowledged the full extent of Russian trickery in the last one. Here are the WaPo editors fretting about 2020:

The Stanford report includes 45 recommendations for protecting the U.S. democratic process. Some three years after Vladimir Putin’s government planted trolls and bots on social media sites to propagandize for Donald Trump, hacked into the emails of officials on Hillary Clinton’s campaign and probed election infrastructure for vulnerabilities, the president’s team has not pursued a single one of them.

Conspicuously absent: the Russian disinformation campaign that led to the Steele dossier and Trump's possible impeachment. Well, the IG report seems to be on deck for late summer/early fall, so maybe Congress will come back from recess and gain a new perspective.

Do let me note that some of the proposals loke like recycled non-starters from the evergreen campaign reform wish list:

Something like the Honest Ads Act is also necessary to require that platforms reveal who paid for political ads that do run — using the names of responsible individuals, rather than only opaque organizations.

Anonymous criticism has a long, proud tradition in American politics, although the legacy media commitment to doxxing those with whom they disagree may change that. (New media rule - protect your sources and screw everyone else).

Some of the other suggestions look like pure showboating. This is from a Dana Milbank rant questioning the patriotism of Cocaine Mitch:

Not three hours after Mueller finished testifying, Mark Warner (D-Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, went to the Senate floor to request unanimous consent to pass legislation requiring presidential campaigns to report to the FBI any offers of assistance from agents of foreign governments.

Oh, please: Putin says something to Trump and the FBI is what, going to investigate them both? Little problems with executive privilege and the primacy of the Executive Branch in conducting foreign policy, one might think. And just what is "assistance"? Is it also a violation if the US President asks a foreign leader to help with his campaign by cutting him some slack until after the election? Lock 'em up!

SEOUL (Reuters) - President Barack Obama was caught on camera on Monday assuring outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he will have “more flexibility” to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election.

Obama, during talks in Seoul, urged Moscow to give him “space” until after the November ballot, and Medvedev said he would relay the message to incoming Russian president Vladimir Putin.

The unusually frank exchange came as Obama and Medvedev huddled together on the eve of a global nuclear security summit in the South Korean capital, unaware their words were being picked up by microphones as reporters were led into the room.

U.S. plans for an anti-missile shield have bedeviled relations between Washington and Moscow despite Obama’s “reset” in ties between the former Cold War foes. Obama’s Republican opponents have accused him of being too open to concessions to Russia on the issue.

Whatev. Obama probably won't be getting jailed for that.

BONUS GLOOM: If I were advising Putin I'd urge him to focus on hacking voting machines in some swing states and a few Blue enclaves such as CA and NY. Don't worry about actually changing any vote totals - just leave a credible trail and be sure to get "caught". Partisans on both sides will take it from there, discrediting both the Electoral College and popular vote totals. Chaos!

Hard though this may be for our friends on the left to imagine, Putin doesn't (and probably didn't) care who wins. He cares that the two sides are at each other's throats. Mission Accomplished!

Yes, yes, as I recall the IC reports, Team Putin started out sowing discord but switched to backing Trump, the longshot. Their plan was, hmm, to see Hillary win anyway and ensure a bitterly hostile new Administration? Uh, OK. Meanwhile, the sources for the Steel dossier exercise were what, Red Rogues who went off-message? 

Of course, that IC assessment came from a group that, a decade earlier, was reviled on the left for producing politicized intel about Iraq's WMDs. But the idea that the bipartisan Washington establishment could agree on a politically motivated story discrediting Trump? Inconceivable. OK, also not supported by the Senate Intel report, but I have the same objection.

My guess: Had Hillary not blown a layup the House and Senate Republicans probably would have spent the last few years entangling her with the Steele dossier, the FISA warrants, and the same material that will be covered in the upcoming IG report. Did Team Obama spy on their political rivals to boost Hillary? Bitter division was inevitable. I wonder if we'd be talking impeachment? First husband-wife to be impeached - put that under "records that will never be broken".

CLASSIC SCOOTER: Long time Yankee fans remember Phil Rizzuto, Bill White and Frank Messer as a legendary radio partnership. One slow afternoon (the Yanks were probably running it up on the Red Sox) the topic turned to baseball records that will never be broken. Dimaggio's 56 game hitting streak was on the mountaintop, of course, along with Ted Williams batting .400.

Anyway, the Scooter was thinking outside the box so he suggested Don Larsen's World Series perfect game as unbreakable. Bill White noted that someone else might come along and pitch another such game, to which the Scooter replied "That would TIE the record!".

Good point. And Hillary won't be getting impeached, so that record hasn't even been set.

LATE ADDITION: The American Prospect manages to present the Republican side of the debate, as of Nov 2017. Yes, its the same "Chilling free speech" points made for years, but with a new Dem counter, namely, Reds under every bed.

Only a progressive could fail to find this "protection" of the small, grassroots efforts to be funny:

Conservatives object that new internet restrictions would block ordinary Americans and small, grassroots groups from speaking freely in politics. An analysis by the Institute for Free Speech even raises the specter that the Honest Ads Act, for one, would impose the heavy hand of government on individual websites and email communications. But this line of argument conflates unpaid political discourse and communications, which are not even under discussion, with paid campaign ads. The legislation would apply only to the largest online platforms, and to political advertisers who spend $500 or more on online platforms that receive at least 50 million unique visitors in the U.S. per month.

$500! That'll net the big fish! What, this was written by Dr. Evil? Cue the laughter. $500 here and $500 there and pretty soon you're talking a real pittance. The Russkies spent $100,000 in 2015/16 and people laughed, since total ad spending was around $8 billion.

 

The Eternal Sunshine Of The Impeachment Mind

Captain Ed describes things that won't be happening even though some Democrats will pretend otherwise.

When those tired Dem fantasies become too much I can turn on the local sports talk radio and listen to Mets fans describe the gee-whiz trade deadline moves the Mets can make to turn themselves into contenders.

To be fair, there are occasional crossover-fusion moments when Mets fans talk about ways to impeach the miserable Mets ownership or the clown-show front office. No talk of a Donald Trump for Boris Johnson trade, however...

 

Score One For The Skeptics And Haters

The express lane drama is Georgia is grinding towards the conclusion predicted by many - a Jussie Smollett fan seems to have fabricated a hate incident. Eventually lipreaders will chime in on the in-store video (no audio). At about the 28 second mark, Erica Thomas is clearly saying something, perhaps repeatedly. Couch potato sports fans have gotten good at spotting the f-bomb, so I'll guess that she is saying something else.

SINCE YOU ASK: The JustOneMinute Handbook is clear on the issue of accosting women (especially pregnant women) in supermarkets to point out picayune problems - DON'T. C'mon, what would Clint Eastwood do? ("If it's not worth shooting them it's not worth hassling them" isn't EXACTLY the answer I'm looking for, but close...)

That said, the Handbook is not supportive of making up self-promotional BS to promote that maligns others.

Mueller Time!

I suppose someone should get fired up to watch this.

So, what is your favorite Frequently Unasked Question? I want to know whether Mueller formed an opinion as to who Joseph Misfud actually worked for. (Mueller's positions on 'who/whom' and sentence-ending prepositions can be part of his answer.) The Maltese Phantom denied being an MI6 "agent", but that is different from denying he was an asset. Since you ask, I think he is far more likely to have Western intelligence connections than Russian ones.

Margot Cleveland has more on our mystery man who might one day be re-dubbed the Maltese Canary.

OK, WOW! Rep. James Jordan scored more than MJ ever did with his Mifsud-centric questioning of Mueller. Do watch the full five minute video of a tired, ready-to-retire bureaucrat chased by a young and hungry politico.

Biden v. Booker: The War To, Hmm, Well, Interrupt the Snore?

At the next debate Spartacus will be all over Biden like white on rice for Biden's support of the 1994 crime bill and incarceration nation. It's a fine progressive position and Booker is uniquely positioned to promote it: his latest legislative proposal, the Second Look Act, is intended to give old-timers in prison for non-violent offenses a second chance at early release. Or so he says. [Spoiler, h/t Ann Coulter: The bill is named for an incarcerated drug lord who led one of the most violent gangs in Harlem back in the 80s. LOL Whatev!]

NBC News gave a glowing presentation of Booker's fight for justice for William Underwood, one of the two guys named in the bill's title:

William Underwood, 65 years years old, is one inmate who wasn't eligible for release under the First Step Act. He has been in federal prison for 30 years, convicted of conspiracy, racketeering and non-violent drug-related crimes. Although it was his first felony conviction, he was sentenced to life in prison without parole under mandatory sentencing guidelines.

Booker, who first met Underwood in 2016, says he's a prime example of the kind prisoner who should be eligible for release. He points to Underwood's age, the time he's already served and his record of good behavior as as reasons why more reforms are needed, noting that even the prison guards have said Underwood doesn’t belong there.

Booker’s legislation would address people like Underwood. The Matthew Charles and William Underwood Second Look Act, named after Underwood and Charles, the first person released because of the First Step Act, would give those serving long sentences a second chance.

That mirrors the Booker press release, so solid steno points to NBC!

Too bad NBC News budget doesn't spring for access to Google and the NY Times archives. But mine does!

Hmm... Trouble in My Blue Heaven?

Here are story excerpts. 1988:

And 1990, the peak year for NYC homicides. The age, 46, is clearly a typo.

Well. This is the guy NBC News and Cory Booker want back on the streets. Should be a rollicking debate, assuming Biden's staffers have given up decaf and do five minutes of homework.

ERRATA: NYC murders from 1928. Murder rate peaked in 1990 and the drug trade was out of control.

 

Sunday Morning Open Thread

Away we go.

Saturday At The Open

Gone golfing.

Could This Be Peak Bernie?

I love this game!

Labor fight roils Bernie Sanders campaign, as workers demand the $15 hourly pay the candidate has proposed for employees nationwide

Future quotes from our non-future President: Social justice is for those being exploited by greedy corporations, not for those being exploited by me.