JustOneMinute

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.

Send Back "Send Her Back"

Trump distances himself from himself:

Trump hits ‘send her back’ chant, claims he tried to stop it

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Thursday chided his supporters who chanted “send her back” when he questioned the loyalty of a Somali-born congresswoman, joining widespread criticism of the campaign crowd’s cry after fellow Republicans warned it could hurt the GOP in next year’s elections

In a week that has corkscrewed daily with hostile exchanges over race and love of country , Trump also claimed he had tried to stop the chant at a reelection event Wednesday night in North Carolina.

“I started speaking really quickly,” he told reporters. “I was not happy with it. I disagree with it” and “would certainly try” to stop any similar chant at a future rally.

Libs are in a meltdown, of course. On the right had side of the commentariat I would say that a clear majority find "Send Her Back" to be un-American; some bitter-clingers think the crowd is trolling the media and aren't seriously suggesting Trump suspend the Constitution and re-write our laws.

Tricky call. I think my Outrage-o-meter burned out in early 2016. I agree that most of that crowd was just mocking the media but still, funny or not, its not funny. Trump needs to dial this back. An election year suggestion: Go for a chant of "Send her home" with the idea that voters can send someone else to Washington.

Bracing For 2020

Last week it was MoDo and now Tom Frideman joins the ranks of those worried that the Dems will lose the Presidential election by nominating a left-wing nutjob. 

But it may not matter. Trump will run against The Squad regardless of the nominee. That means a moderate Dem will be taking (and returning!) fire from both flanks. Or embracing the love of The Squad. Tough either way, but this is the face the Dems picked so they can grin and wear it.

I Want To Go Back To Wherever I Came From

Trump loves a brawl featuring extremist Democrats and The Squad loves attention so this scuffle works for both sides.

David Brooks is interesting on the theory of classic liberalism, ie, the non-revolutionary type which has fallen out of favor among the young and young of heart (We see you ranting over there Bernie!).

The Times notes in passing that with his "go back" comment Trump may have been aiming for a more race-neutral, politically themed "Love it or leave it". And going WAAY back, "go back" was more about politics than race:

Those who study language and rhetoric say the president’s “go back” comments — or, at least, the sentiment behind them — have roots beginning as far back as the 1600s, when dissidents were banished from American colonies for advocating total religious freedom. Later, a set of laws passed in 1798 allowed the deportation of noncitizens who were considered dangerous, were from hostile nations or had criticized the federal government.

Obviously, since everything is about race today, "go back" is as well.

And where does this leave us? Aghast and confused, which is to say, the same place I've been for a few years now. Keeping The Squad on center stage may help Trump in 2020. Having people scream Trump's a racist may have been tuned out by now. I endorse the view of Jeff Dobbs on Twitter:

I am calling for the total and complete sending of every elected official back to their countries of origin until we can figure out what the hell is going on.

That ought to buy us some time. Like, a decade or two...

All The News That Fits The Narrative

Antifa? What's that?

A Seattle man attacked an ICE facility with a rifle and incendiary devices. Hmm, Seattle. A possible antifa connection? Hey, what's antifa anyway? The NY Times gets this close:

Police have not established a motive for the attack, but The Seattle Times reported that a longtime friend of Mr. Van Spronsen’s, Deb Bartley, believed he had intended to provoke a fatal conflict.

“He was ready to end it,” she told The Times. “I think this was a suicide.”

Hmm, did the long-time friend have anything else to say? Link-clickers who make it to the Seattle Times read this (my emphasis)

Deb Bartley, a friend of Van Spronsen’s for about 20 years, described him as an anarchist and anti-fascist, and she believes his attack on the detention center was intended to provoke a fatal conflict. 

 “He was ready to end it,” Bartley said. “I think this was a suicide. But then he was able to kind of do it in a way that spoke to his political beliefs … I know he went down there knowing he was going to die.”

She and other friends of Van Spronsen got letters in the mail “just saying goodbye.” He also wrote what she referred to as a manifesto, which she declined to discuss in detail but predicted would be taken by authorities.

Huh. The manifesto is probably this and yes, the antifa make the news occasionally but the NY Times has a hard time noticing.

The Washington Post also choked on this bone, quoting Deb Bartley only in part:

Deb Bartley, who said she was a longtime friend of Van Spronsen’s, told the Seattle Times she believes he intended to die by attacking the detention center on Saturday.

“He was ready to end it,” she told the Times. “I think this was a suicide. But then he was able to kind of do it in a way that spoke to his political beliefs. . . . I know he went down there knowing he was going to die.”

Bartley said Van Spronsen left a “manifesto” that she did not share details of but thinks will be used by authorities. She and others got letters from Van Spronsen “saying goodbye,” she said.

On the other hand, USA Today ran an AP story and managed to blurt out the truth, so we know its possible:

69-year-old 'anarchist' shot, killed after attacking Washington migrant detention center

Story Highlights

• • A 69-year-old man was shot and killed after an attempted attack on a migrant detention facility in Washington.
  • The man, Willem Van Spronsen, was described by a friend as an anarchist and anti-fascist.
  • The attacker was arrested outside the same detention facility for assaulting a police officer during a protest in 2018.

The idea that the antifa is a problem will have a harder time taking hold while urban liberals remain cocooned by their solicitous news outlets. But all that means is that 2020 is likely to be full of surprises!

Saturday Morning

Here we go again. Trump and Pelosi versus AOC! Do you bet on youth and energy or experience and numbers?

I remain shocked (in a totally non-shocked way) that Dem "strategists" seem to be seeking a progressive Presidential candidate whose coattails should let them sweep Congressional districts in Brooklyn, Manhattan, San Francisco and a few other urban enclaves while losing most of the country.

Do they understand "swing districts"? Do they understand that winning Brooklyn with 85% of the vote doesn't send more people to Congress than winning with a mere 75%?

The roster of nervous libs is expanding. Matt Yglesias tried to explain the benefits of moderation. With science AND studies, since common sense has left the building.

Jon Chait joined in on July 3, which may have gotten him even more readership than a full burial at sea on July 4.

Kevin Drum wonders if the Democrats are now the party of open borders and makes a courageous admission:

I have previously criticized Republicans who accused liberals of wanting “open borders.” President Trump tweets about this endlessly. But I have to admit that it’s hard to see much daylight between Warren’s plan and de facto open borders.

Well, yeah.

I'm sticking with my current theory: With her race and gender, Kamala Harris gets a bit of an automatic progressive pass so she is under less pressure to go Full Crazy. That should help! However, as a Hothouse California Dem who may have never met an actual conservative, she seems to be hazy as to just how crazy her party is. Hence her waffling and walkbacks on Medicare for All and her support, or nostalgia, or something for forced busing.

I'm old enough to remember 1984, when Walter Mondale was lefty enough to be dubbed the Pander Bear and Reagan carried 49 states. That led to the Democratic Leadership Council and a moderate revolt which culminated in Clinton '92. Or go back to lefty McGovern in '72, when Nixon carried 49 states. Carter ran as a moderate in '76 and away he went.

So far 2020 looks more like 1972 or 1984 but these pendulums keep on swingin'.

Acosta Out; Are There DoJ Files Available?

Acosta has stepped down as SecLab.

NY Mag finds hedge fund managers who don't think Epstein managed a real hedge fund. Their guess: he blackmailed his clients. Well, call it 'blackmail-lite' - investors pay Epstein, say, 2% per year and he puts the money in Treasuries and index funds. Epstein raises $1 billion, pockets $20 million a year, lives the life. If the fees are higher but the clients are paying for regular access to the young ladies, well, more money for Epstein. Of course, that is a lot less like blackmail and a lot more like a disguised fee for service. This theory also works with the idea that Epstein was pals with some wealthy Saudis and was shaking down the sheiks for cash and intelligence (hence Epstein's ownership by US intel), as reportedly claimed by Acosta during his Trump transition interviews).

A waving red flag that libs are worried about just who was being protected is this ludicrously framed article by Dahlia Lithwick at Slate:

How Alex Acosta Got Away With It for So Long

Acosta got away with it? What was in it for him? And why (as Ms. Lithwick eventually acknowledges in the hundredth paragraph) were so many other of the high and mighty also abetting Epstein? Why, for example, did Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance go easy on Epstein? Acosta's reach extended that far? Please.

The real question is why did the system protect Epstein. And on that point, I have yet to see any reporting describing the prosecutor's case files down in the Southern District of Florida. Unless the DoJ is unique in the history of bureaucracies, I expect there is surviving paperwork documenting the charging decision. The Miami Herald, in their exhaustive Epstein investigation, claimed access to other documents but nothing from the SD FL (my emphasis):

Not only would Epstein serve just 13 months in the county jail, but the deal — called a non-prosecution agreement — essentially shut down an ongoing FBI probe into whether there were more victims and other powerful people who took part in Epstein’s sex crimes, according to a Miami Herald examination of thousands of emails, court documents and FBI records.

There is also the odd aspect that the plea agreement bars pursuit of Epstein's co-conspirators. Isn't that a bit of clue that maybe the point was to protect people other than Epstein?

Well. My Frequently Unasked Questions: Would there normally be contemporaneous DoJ paperwork on a typical case? Is there paperwork for the Epstein case or did the dog eat it? If there is paperwork, shouldn't the DoJ Inspector General and Congressional overseers have access to it?

We heard Acosta's rationalizations on Wednesday, but is there contemporaneous support for it? Or some other explanation, such as a note citing a senior DoJ official telling Acosta that the intelligence community has asked them to back away?

Where are the leaks??? Or is this a situation where the usual media suspects have been advised that "I'd tell you but then you'd want to kill yourself"?

 

Epstein "Belonged To Intelligence"?

Vicky Ward, who has been pursuing the Epstein story since 2002, provides an intriguing detail about why Epstein may have gotten a sweetheart deal from the Feds:

A couple of years ago, I was interviewing a former senior White House official when the name Jeffrey Epstein came up. 

Unaware of my personal history with Epstein, this person assured me that the New York financier was no serious harm to anyone. He was a good guy. A charming guy. Useful, too. He knew a lot of rich Arabs, including the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, and, further, he had clever ideas about creating bond issues for them. “OK, so he has a girl problem,” this person threw on, almost as an afterthought.

...

“Is the Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?” Acosta had been asked. Acosta had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he’d had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He’d cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had “been told” to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,” he told his interviewers in the Trump transition, who evidently thought that was a sufficient answer and went ahead and hired Acosta. (The Labor Department had no comment when asked about this.)

Well now. First, this may be garbled third hand story-telling which Acosta won't confirm (he apparently made no mention of an intelligence issue in his news conference today.)

Second, Acosta may have been told that as a little white lie by senior officials protecting Epstein.

But third... a guy with friends among the Arab sheiks may have had useful contacts during the early 2000's when the US was looking for both bin Laden and intel on Saddam's WMDs.

If Epstein was involved in that sort of thing the odds are we will never find out. But IF (I say IF!) we learn that Epstein was protected in 2008 because he was part of the WMD bellyflop in 2002, well - Washington will need a bigger fan to process the shit that will hit it.

Jeffrey Epstein Busted

Mystery financier Jeffrey Epstein was busted by the NY Feds for sex trafficking [indictment here]. If I am following, these are new charges based on activity in Manhattan, not a revival of the bitterly controversial 2008 case that was quashed down in Florida.

Epstein is routinely linked to Bill Clinton, Donald Trump and Prince Andrew and many others among the rich and famous.

As to Wild Bill, records reportedly reveal he flew on Epstein's "Lolita Express" 26 times, often ditching his Secret Service protection (I assume this is post-Presidency). Would Democrats have been pushing to protect Hillary's Presidential campaign in 2007/08? Obvi.

Trump seems to have flown with Epstein once but clearly knew him socially. Epstein was also a regular at Mar-a-Lago.

Obviously, protecting the Clintons is no longer a Dem priority. Would Bush have been protecting Trump back in 2008? Why? On the other hand, the Republican Establishment embeds in the DoJ might be willing to go after Trump today.

Well. Most likely, this case will turn into one more example of Resistance Projection: they accuse Trump of behavior (probably, in this case) engaged in by a Clinton. 

Meanwhile, Back At The Mall...

Saved by the rain! It was undoubtedly divine intervention that thwarted Trump's attempted putsch yesterday, but will progressives be willing to praise God?

Ebb And Flow

Nate Silver's 538 has polling indicating post-debate changes in polling position. Unsurprisingly, Biden lost support and Harris gained it. However, more Biden supporters moved to other candidates than to Harris.

Personally, I was delighted to see Kristen Gillibrand's net favorable rating decline, although probably not by a statistically significant margin. Boo 'er off!

How About That World Cup?

The non-traditional World Cup post-game thread. Or real news.

Dow Poised To, Well, Pounce.

Can the Dow pounce? Stock futures (DJIA up 226) indicate that the early money likes the Trump trade truce.  We will see what the morrow brings.

Health Care Follies

The NY Times notes the Democratic dance around Medicare for All and the possible elimination of private insurance.

But its what the Democrats all agree on that will really get them - the idea of free health care for all undocumented future Democrats when we have an obvious shortage of health providers for low-income US citizens? More crazy faster!

On the topic of immigration, Andrew Sullivan is excellent (either Sully is back from his Palin-fueled Alaskan wilderness journey or I have joined him.) Fareed Zakaria, a reliable lefty, is also concerned about his party's position.

BONUS QUERY - BLUE STATE BAILOUT?: Would the abolition of private insurance wipe out the obligation of various states on their health plans to public sector retirees and/or their current employees? One might think so but I have not checked the details of the Medicare For All plans or the state obligations to current and retired employees. That said, Connecticut, Illinois and New Jersey are on everyone's list of states Too Big To Fail, Too Blue To Succeed.

Of course, both public and private sector unions negotiated health benefits later in lieu of (unaffordable) pay increases immediately, so union support my be soft.

DO LET ME ADD: Just to pick Connecticut at random, state budget projections show health care expenses (current and retirees) of $1.5B in 2020, $1.6B in 2021.

Projected deficits are $1.9B in 2020 and $2.5B in 2021. Eliminating the health care expense is not a complete solution but every big bit helps.

It May Not Be Smart Money But Its Early Money

PredictIt has the Dem frontrunners on a cool graph. Bettors say Biden is taking on water.

Heck of a problem posting today unless it's a link.OL that stamford article is for you.

A Character Building Opportunity

I have NOT been watching this debate because I am a man of low character. But I will read about it at some point.

Here We Go Again

Between Iran, China, the border and E. Jean Carroll's rape allegation, I am having another onset of news overload.

On another day I might even say "I can't even", but I've been getting help with that.

Carry on!

Weekend Open Thread

Lots to talk about.

California Dreamin' Comes East

NY State Democrats approve the most virtue-signalling green program yet:

New York to Approve One of the World’s Most Ambitious Climate Plans

The state would pledge to eliminate net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, with all its electricity coming from carbon-free sources.

New York lawmakers have agreed to pass a sweeping climate plan that calls for the state to all but eliminate its greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, envisioning an era when gas-guzzling cars, oil-burning heaters and furnaces would be phased out, and all of the state’s electricity would come from carbon-free sources.

...

If the state manages to hit those targets, it would effectively create a so-called net-zero economy, the ultimate goal of environmentalists and others seeking to slow the pace of global warming.

Let me emphasize the magical thinking hidden in "a net-zero-economy, the ultimate goal...". This bill, if achieved, will make NY State a net-zero region. There are no border tariffs for carbon intensive products produced elsewhere. 

Can New Yorkers still eat beef? Those cows have to fart somewhere. Can the state import steel for infrastructure and buildings? Who (if anyone) offsets the carbon emissions associated with mining and processing that steel in New Yorkers do not?

And while on the topic of burden-shifting, absent huge breakthroughs in energy storage (possible!), NY State will have a major baseload power production problem. Their intended solution seems to be to free-ride off their neighbors on the regional grid, which may raise eyebrows in other states. You can ride but you can't hide from those angry ducks!

Oh, Boy! Say It Ain't So, Joe

Joe Gaffe-O-Matic Biden was at it again, this time talking up his civil relationship with some hard-line segregationist Dem Senators of the 70s. The Times:

Joe Biden, Recalling ‘Civility’ in Senate, Invokes Two Segregationist Senators

Joseph R. Biden Jr., defending himself on Tuesday night against suggestions that he is too “old fashioned” for today’s Democratic Party, invoked two Southern segregationist senators by name as he fondly recalled the “civility” of the Senate in the 1970s and 1980s.

Speaking at a fund-raiser at the Carlyle Hotel in New York City, Mr. Biden, 76, stressed the need to “be able to reach consensus under our system,” and cast his decades in the Senate as a time of relative comity. His remarks come as some in his party say that Mr. Biden is too focused on overtures to the right as he seeks the Democratic presidential nomination.

At the event, Mr. Biden noted that he served with the late Senators James O. Eastland of Mississippi and Herman Talmadge of Georgia, both Democrats who were staunch opponents of desegregation. Mr. Eastland was the powerful chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee when Mr. Biden entered the chamber in 1973.

That must have been the pre-cringe moment. Joe paid off with this next quote, which is begging to be taken out of context:

“I was in a caucus with James O. Eastland,” Mr. Biden said, slipping briefly into a Southern accent, according to a pool report from the fund-raiser. “He never called me ‘boy,’.

Oh my Joe, he never called you "boy" because you're white!!!

Well, fun's fun: the full quote is this, which is still pretty funny:

“He never called me ‘boy,’ he always called me ‘son.’”

Many are called 'son' but few are chosen. The good news: With Joe in it, CNN might even cut away from Trump occasionally  since we have a new, yet old and reliable, source for "WTF did I just hear?" moments.

 

CNN, Scooped!

CNN has long since moved on to obsessing about The Donald but The Atlantic runs a long piece detailing the search, and likely explanation, of missing Malaysian Airliner 370.

Spoiler: Highly probable it was a deliberate suicide run by the pilot. But the description of the puzzle-solving process is fascinating.

Happy Father's Day!

Be cool.

Back To The Law Books

The DoJ releases the memo we were promised in April backing SecTreas Mnuchin's refusal to cough up Trump's tax returns.

As I argued last May their argument was no doubt previewed in Mnuchin's 52 page letter of April 23 to House Chair Neal. However, I have yet to compare the two and, per the Times, a bit of legal water has passed under the bridge since April:

Mr. Engel’s argument that Congress lacked a legitimate legislative purpose in seeking Mr. Trump’s tax returns dovetailed closely with tracked arguments made by Mr. Trump’s legal team in lawsuits over congressional subpoenas to financial firms like Mazars USA for his financial records.

Two Federal District Court judges last month rejected that argument, refusing to block congressional subpoenas to such firms. One wrote that it was because Congress had put forth a valid argument for why it wanted them for legislative purposes and that it was “not for the court to question whether the committee’s actions are truly motivated by political considerations.” Mr. Trump is appealing the rulings.

One might wonder how the court can decline to assess the legitimacy of a Congressional legislative purpose in light of Watkins. My guess: In Watkins the Supreme Court found no legislative purpose was offered at all; in the current case, the Congress is offering a transparently pretextual one and daring the court to laugh out loud (OK, that is my humble editorial opinion).

Of course, the courts are often happy to swallow their whistle when the other two branches slug it out.

BONUS PEDANTRY: The Department of Redundancy Department loves the Times phrasing here:

Mr. Engel’s argument... dovetailed closely with tracked arguments made by Mr. Trump’s legal team".

This online publishing world moves so quickly - who has time to edit? Eventually that will get a correction but not a formal "Correction", being well within any gray/grey area. It took me a week to get this real one. Yeah, I keep score.

Oh, Man! Iran Behind Tanker Attack In Gulf of Oman?

SecState Pompeo fingers Iran:

Pompeo Says Intelligence Points to Iran in Tanker Attack in Gulf of Oman

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Thursday that intelligence reviewed by American officials showed that Iran was responsible for attacks earlier in the day on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman, a critical waterway for the transit of much of the world’s oil.

Mr. Pompeo did not present any evidence to back up the assessment of Iran’s involvement. The assertion is certain to further fuel tensions between the Trump administration and Iranian leaders, which have been at heightened levels since early May, when the White House announced military movements in response to what American officials have said is an increased threat from Iran.

But do remember - this is "drumbeat of war" intelligence, which every proper progressive knows can be manipulated and politicized. Its totally different when its "Russians aided Trump" intelligence. Obviously.

Bringing The CIA To Justice

Hmm.

Justice Dept. Seeks to Question C.I.A. in Its Own Russia Investigation

WASHINGTON — Justice Department officials intend to interview senior C.I.A. officers as they review the Russia investigation, according to people briefed on the matter, indicating they are focused partly on the intelligence agencies’ most explosive conclusion about the 2016 election: that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia intervened to benefit Donald J. Trump.

The interview plans are the latest sign the Justice Department will take a critical look at the C.I.A.’s work on Russia’s election interference. Investigators want to talk with at least one senior counterintelligence official and a senior C.I.A. analyst, the people said. Both officials were involved in the agency’s work on understanding the Russian campaign to sabotage the election in 2016.

While the Justice Department review is not a criminal inquiry, it has provoked anxiety in the ranks of the C.I.A., according to former officials. Senior agency officials have questioned why the C.I.A.’s analytical work should be subjected to a federal prosecutor’s scrutiny. Attorney General William P. Barr, who is overseeing the review, assigned the United States attorney in Connecticut, John H. Durham, to conduct it.

As advertised.

Back At It-ish

Chaos reigns! (Evergreen...)

No Tariffs On Mexico

Trump announces a dramatic last-minute deal! Peter Baker of the Times goes on at length on a pint I have made before (Where? Hmm... this from Mar 2018 for sure.) - Trump creates this drama and then solves it. Or at least, "solves" it. North Korea has been the most harrowing example but the China trade war (with an inevitable "victory" in time to keep the economy humming for November 2020) is becoming the most consequential.

Weaker But Not Yet Weak

The Squawk Box consensus of the disappointing jobs report is that it shows a weaker economy but not a weak one. That said, I share their belief that Team Trump will want to re-think their trade wars in order to keep the economy perking until the fall of 2020.

Do let me add, last Christmas Trump had a valid point that the Fed was on the wrong path; they have since become more accommodating, as they indicated at the end of January.

The Longest Day

BTW, "The Longest day" is a quote from German general Rommel.

Say It Ain't So, Joe (Famous Joe Jackson "Black Sox" Quote)

Joe Biden plagiarizing again? Not exactly - we assume he hasn't read his position papers on climate change so its really a Staff Fail. Still...

Debt Service Redux

In a new service to their readership, the Times front pages Tomorrow's News Today: a debt ceiling crunch is approaching in late October/early November and Washington "leadership" may remain dysfunctional.

Well, OK. I'll add that to my list of worries but it won't crack the Top Ten for a while.

Sunday Afternoon

Another Big Game yesterday although I've heard that some folks lost concentration and were distracted by this.

Too Busy Mocking Obama To Enjoy The Joke

Obama ran his mouth in Brazil recently, spouting nonsense about gun laws in the US:

"Some of you may be aware our gun laws in the United States don't make much sense. Anybody can buy any weapon any time. Without much, if any, regulation, they can buy it over the Internet, they can buy machine guns," Obama told the audience.

Machine guns?!? Yeah, yeah, nonsense. 

But here's the kicker, and let's go to the videotape! Come in at the 40 second mark. What does the crowd do after Obama says "Anybody can buy any weapon any time"? They go nuts! What, did Brazil score a goal in the World Cup?

Not really. It turns out Brazil has very restrictive gun laws and very corrupt police. The upshot proves the old adage that when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Their gun homicide rate is roughly five times that of the US.

The public is not happy. Back in 2006 they rejected by referendum an attempt to further limit civilian access to weapons. And their current President, a former paratrooper and law-and-order candidate, ran on a "Suns out, guns out" message:

Bolsonaro won the presidency by running on a far-right, law-and-order platform, and often delighted supporters at campaign stops with his signature “guns up” hand gesture. His maverick presidential run energized a base of rural landowners, Christian conservatives and free-market hawks who yearned for a tougher response to years of rising violence and political graft.

The temporary decree, which will expire in 120 days unless ratified by Congress, is likely to thrill his supporters, but many others fear it will only worsen violence in Brazil. The country suffered a record 64,000 murders in 2017, the most in the world. Nearly 45,000 of those homicides involved firearms.

A former paratrooper who took office on Jan. 1, Bolsonaro eventually wants to overturn a 2003 law that effectively banned the civilian purchase of guns.

“To guarantee citizens their legitimate right to defense, I, as president, will use this weapon,” Bolsonaro said, holding up the pen he used to sign the decree.

That was January. Bolsonaro issued another decree in May, which went to the courts.

In any case, Obama may have thought he was addressing yet another typical Dem fundraiser Upper West Side audience desperate for gun control. He chose poorly.

Saturday Morning

I heard there was a ball game last night.

Those Annoying Democratic Governors

Progressives are having trouble getting their own team to fall in line with their agenda.

Down bayou way, the Louisiana Governor, a Dem, signed a fetal heartbeat bill over outraged howls from the pro-choicers. Out in Nevada, the Dem governor declined to sign the National Popular Vote Compact, the progressive fantasy intended to eliminate the Electoral College.

What does this mean for the 2020 Parade of Candidates? Will progressives take a "can't trust these moderates" stance and fight, fight, fight with even greater conviction to make sure a non-delusional Dem such as Biden is not the nominee?

Or will this give them pause to wonder whether the nation might not really be teed up for their latest and bestest ideas?

I'll (continue to) bet they fight, fight fight to make sure their party does not offer the nation a sensible choice.

Collusion Never Dies!

Byron York presents a history of the Trump/Russian collusion charge. Byhis telling it rose during the summer of 2016 from the fog of the Clinton campaign, aided by briefings about the Steele dossier given to Clinton campaign officials.

In the days leading up to the Democratic convention, the Clinton campaign and its allies in the press saw Russia as a potentially valuable weapon for attacking Trump. On July 20, the New York Times' Andrew Rosenthal wrote a column headlined "Is Trump Obsessed With Putin and Russia?" Two days later, Rosenthal's Times colleague Paul Krugman wrote a piece entitled "Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate" in which he asked, "If elected, would Donald Trump be Vladimir Putin's man in the White House?"

That same day, July 22, Wikileaks released emails from the Democratic National Committee. Two days later, on the 24th, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook went on television to claim that not only was Russia behind the hack — that was later proven true — but also that the Trump campaign was in league with Russia.

"Donald Trump changed the Republican platform to become what some experts would regard as pro-Russian," Mook told ABC News, referring to a just-published Washington Post story that reported, incorrectly, that Trump aides had weakened the portion of the GOP platform regarding Russia and Ukraine.

"He has praised Vladimir Putin," Mook continued. "It's troubling."

What did Mook know and when did he know it? Steele's info was being passed to him or his team:

According to Russian Roulette, the book by reporters Michael Isikoff and David Corn, Steele sent the first installment to Fusion GPS in June 2016. Fusion, in turn, "gave Steele's reports and other research documents to Elias," according to a Washington Post account. And Elias briefed the Clinton campaign.

"We were getting briefings that were put together by the law firm with information," Mook recalled in an interview with CNN in late 2017. "So our internal team was presenting information, our lawyer was presenting information, you know, and we — and we sort of learned things in pieces."

So as Clinton and her aides pushed the collusion narrative, with the help of an enthusiastic press, campaign officials were also being briefed on the newest, freshest allegations from Steele.

The problem, of course, was that the allegations were not true. Steele also gave his reports to the FBI, which tried to verify them "line by line," according to former FBI general counsel James Baker. It did not succeed. Nearly three years later, the Mueller report failed to corroborate any of the dossier's serious allegations. It was wrong at best, a fraud at worst.

Hmm, so Team Clinton was peddling false anti-Trump info they had, through cutouts, bought from Russian government sources. Troubling? Troubling!

And what about Steele's information? John Solomon of The Hill has more bombshells:

Multiple witnesses have told Congress that, a week before Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, Britain’s top national security official sent a private communique to the incoming administration, addressing his country’s participation in the counterintelligence probe into the now-debunked Trump-Russia election collusion.

Most significantly, then-British national security adviser Sir Mark Lyall Grant claimed in the memo, hand-delivered to incoming U.S. national security adviser Mike Flynn’s team, that the British government lacked confidence in the credibility of former MI6 spy Christopher Steele’s Russia collusion evidence, according to congressional investigators who interviewed witnesses familiar with the memo.

We should wait patiently for the Inspector General report on this but it certainly seems that Team Clinton and the DoJ were colluding with Russia (based on their use of the term vis a vis Trump) or were duped by the Russians. Certainly, the Russian scheme to spread chaos and confusion exceeded expectations.

 

 

When Is A Flip-Flop Not A Flip-Flop

I always thought McConnell was quite clear that his refusal to give Garland a hearing was based on a principle of non-cooperation with the other party in an election year. A principle articulated by Joe Biden in 1992.

I need to fact-check my memory.