PowerLine -> To appease kneelers, NFL backs leniency for felons + The Bergdahl Obamanation
PowerLine -> To appease kneelers, NFL backs leniency for felons + The Bergdahl Obamanation
- Bombshell Revelations about Russia and Obama’s Department of Justice
- To appease kneelers, NFL backs leniency for felons
- Loose Ends (30)
- The Bergdahl Obamanation
- Trump and McConnell hang out
|Bombshell Revelations about Russia and Obama’s Department of Justice
Posted: 17 Oct 2017 11:11 AM PDT
These extraordinary revelations, apparently from frustrated FBI agents, were published in The Hill today. The corruption they suggest is extensive:
Let that sink in. All of this was known before the Obama/Clinton State Department approved the controversial transfer of US uranium assets to Russia. But the Obama/Holder Justice Department did nothing.
It is a supreme irony that the Democrats have tried to make hay out of hypothetical connections between the Trump administration and Russia.
As usual, the Obama administration defended itself in the uranium controversy with lies:
Russia’s bribery and extortion scheme was remarkably successful:
This was known early in the Obama administration, but Holder’s Department of Justice hushed up Russia’s crimes and hid the scandal:
As a result, just about everyone was left in the dark about the extent of the corruption and national security threat that the FBI had unearthed.
Of course they were.
Ironies abound: who supervised the Russia investigation? Rod Rosenstein. Who was the FBI director when the Russia probe began in 2009? Robert Mueller. Who was running the FBI when the case ended with a whimper and an apparent cover-up? James Comey. How any of these people can participate with a straight face in an investigation into President Trump’s purportedly nefarious (but, as far as we know, nonexistent) relationship with the Russian regime is beyond me.
This story belongs on the front page of every newspaper in the United States tomorrow.
|To appease kneelers, NFL backs leniency for felons
Posted: 17 Oct 2017 11:01 AM PDT
Hoping to bring an end to kneeling during the National Anthem, NFL owners are meeting with the players’ union. To smooth the way, the League has endorsed legislation that would mean lighter sentencing for drug felons.
It’s unlikely that the NFL’s endorsement counts for much at this juncture. For one thing, it’s widely understood that Roger Goodell has enough trouble managing his own business without branching off into the nation’s. For another, the endorsement will be viewed by many, not as the League’s good faith analysis of criminal law and social policy (for what little that might be worth), but as an attempt to buy off the small number of radical players who disrespect our country when the anthem is played.
Nor will the NFL’s endorsement of leniency for felons solve the real problem it faces — fan disgust. The NFL’s fan base does not want to see professional football politicized the way ESPN has been, to its detriment. And many fans won’t be amused by League support for legislation that will mean more convicted felons on the street, and thus more crime.
To be sure, the League takes a bigger short-term hit when players kneel and the President complains than it will take for endorsing legislation most people don’t know about. However, pacifying radical players with this endorsement (assuming it has that short-term effect) will likely embolden them.
What happens the next time players take a knee (or engage in similarly disrespectful behavior) in the name of some other misguided “social justice” agenda item? Does the League support that item? If not, the NFL is back where it is now. If so, how do fans react?
The League needs to persuade its fan base that the NFL is “Not for Liberalism” — indeed, that it is not political except to the extent that love of America has become controversial. Endorsing leniency for felons at a time when crime is rising doesn’t seem like the way to accomplish this.
|Loose Ends (30)
Posted: 17 Oct 2017 08:34 AM PDT
A couple of short items worth noting today.
• First, in the New York Times story yesterday on how the Weinstein scandal is opening the floodgates of sexual harassment charges, this wonderfully droll sentence appears:
Did they really write this with a straight face? What next: “Bernie Madoff served as the imperfect messenger for investment executives praising the acumen of the Securities and Exchange Commission.” Or perhaps: “Colin Kaepernick served as the imperfect messenger for inconsistent quarterbacks who demand to be starters.”
• Less, Lesser, Lessig strikes again. We’ve commented occasionally before about what a delusional, puffed-up poseur Harvard’s Larry Lessing is, but this week he’s outdone himself. Turning up in Newsweek (yes, I know—you didn’t think Newsweek still existed), Lessig lays out how Hillary Clinton can still become president:
Sure, and as Wayne says in Wayne’s World, monkeys might fly out of my butt:
|The Bergdahl Obamanation
Posted: 17 Oct 2017 05:56 AM PDT
(Scott Johnson)The mainstream media foster the great forgetting of the facts and lies about underlying Bowe Bergdahl’s plea of guilt to charges of desertion and (even more seriously) misbehavior before the enemy. Nicholas Fondacaro documents the suppression of the record in the NewsBuster post “Nets forget Obama admin championed Bergdahl as a ‘hero’ coming home.” Fondacaro includes the ABC News report on Bergdahl’s plea yesterday (video below). It represents the evidence of absence.
National Security Adviser Susan Rice was President Obama’s designated liar. Her shamelessness must have been her foremost qualification for the high office she disgraced.
Obama sent her out to the Sunday gabfests to have her declare that Bergdahl had served “with honor and distinction.” And that’s not all. “Sergeant Bergdahl wasn’t simply a hostage,” she asserted, “he was an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield.” And further: “We have a sacred obligation that we have upheld since the founding of our republic to do our utmost to bring back our men and women who are taken in battle, and we did that in this instance.” Video is posted here.
Obama’s statement foregoes outright lies in favor of falsehood by implication. In retrospect, we can see the calculated duplicity in it.
We have Obama’s fake bonhomie with the Bergdahls. We have the portrayal of Bergdahl as a heroic prisoner of war. Unlike Susan Rice, Obama omitted any assertion fact regarding Bergdahl’s capture. The heroic portrayal is implied in the depiction of Bergdahl’s deprivations. We have Obama’s negotiation with terrorists and exchange of a deserter for five-high ranking Taliban terrorists as a triumph of martial valor, fidelity to military tradition and brilliant diplomacy, all in the service of American ideals.
When undermining the United States, Obama frequently resorted to the refrain: “That’s who we are as Americans.” He didn’t give us the facts. He didn’t give us an argument to support what he had done. He gave us his refrain. Don’t play it again, Barry.
The Taliban treated Bergdahl as a high-value hostage. Obama accorded Bergdahl a similarly high value as a pawn to be used in his project of closing Guantanamo and getting out of Afghanistan. Here are brief profiles of the five Taliban butchers Obama offloaded for Bergdahl.
In today’s New York Post Paul Sperry revisits the deal. Sperry reports: “The Pentagon itself refused to list Bergdahl as a POW. That’s because an internal 2009 Army report found he had a history of walking off his post and more than likely deserted. It also found he shipped his laptop back home to Idaho, and left a note expressing his disillusionment with the war, before ending up in the arms of the Taliban.”
Sperry anticipates the October 23 sentencing hearing next week will “include dramatic testimony about three troops seriously injured during search-and-rescue missions launched to find [Bergdahl]. Two of them suffered disabling injuries: Army National Guard Sgt. 1st Class Mark Allen, who in 2009 was shot in the head searching for Bergdahl, leaving him confined to a wheelchair and unable to talk; and Navy SEAL Jimmy Hatch, who was shot in the leg on another search the next day, leaving him with a permanent limp.”
Obama is not a good liar, but he is a bold one. His boldness is in part a function of his confidence that he will never be called on his lies.
|Trump and McConnell hang out
Posted: 16 Oct 2017 05:15 PM PDT
President Trump met with Senate Majority Leader McConnell today. Then, they held a lengthy joint press conference. The transcript is here.
White House officials described the lunch as focused mainly on efforts to cut taxes. Reportedly, Trump and McConnell also discussed Steve Bannon’s threat to back insurgent candidates in an effort to defeat numerous GOP Senators in primaries. It’s likely that convincing Trump not to support this effort was the primary purpose of the lunch from McConnell’s perspective.
McConnell’s talking points were well-calculated to appeal to Trump. According to Politico’s sources, the Majority Leader noted that Bannon appears to be targeting Senators who fully support the president’s agenda — e.g., Deb Fischer and John Barrasso.
It’s a concern that likely resonates with the president. Trump loves loyalty.
McConnell also reminded Trump about past insurgent primary winners who went on to lose in the general election. As McConnell later said during the joint press conference:
It’s a concern that likely resonates with the president. Trump loves winning.
Trump’s remarks during the joint press conference suggest that McConnell made progress with the president. Of Bannon’s insurgency, Trump said:
Judging from his tweets, the main source of Trump’s frustration with McConnell and the GOP Senate is probably the failure to get the votes needed to pass even “skinny” Obamacare repeal and replace legislation. But that failure stemmed from the votes of just three Senators. Two of them, Sens. Collins and Murkowski, are the least conservative GOP members. The third, Sen. McCain, loves to be a maverick and hates Trump.
The Obamacare vote provides no reason why Trump (as opposed to Bannon) should want to see Sens. Fischer and Barrasso, for example, defeated. Nor, to my knowledge, does any other Senate vote.
Trump finds himself in the middle of war between populists and traditional conservative Republicans. He would like, I believe, to mediate that conflict.
The notion of Trump as mediator seems implausible at one level, given his personality and given that he sparked the war. On the other hand, it’s natural that the president, as leader of the coalition that elected him, would like to keep the coalition more or less together.
In any case, Trump is the only figure I know of who, at this time, can bridge the gap. Today, he worked the McConnell side of the fence. In his tweets and at his rallies, he works the populist side. His policy decisions so far tend to split the difference.
I wish him good luck.
NOTE: I have modified this post slightly since it first went up.