Tuesday, July 21, 2020

Twitter is Banning QAnon


at

Trump Signs Order Excluding Illegal Immigrants From Census

 by Tyler Durden at ZeroHedge
Tue, 07/21/2020 - 15:55

President Trump on Tuesday signed an order which will bar immigrants living in the United States illegally from being included in the 2020 census for purposes of apportioning members of Congress to states.

According to the memo, it will be the "policy of the United States to exclude from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status under the Immigration and Nationality Act."

It directs Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to provide Trump with data on the number of undocumented residents in order to exclude them from population totals which determine how many seats each state receives in Congress, according to NBC News.

"We will collect all of the information we need to conduct an accurate census and to make responsible decisions about public policy, voting rights, and representation in Congress," said Trump in a Tuesday statement.

The administration argues that the U.S. Constitution does not specifically define which "persons" must be included in the apportionment base, noting that documented immigrants who are in the country temporarily and certain foreign diplomatic personnel are "persons" who have been excluded from the apportionment base in past censuses.
It was not immediately clear how undocumented immigrants would be identified in order to omit them from the census count.The census questionnaire, which was distributed in March, did not require respondents to indicate whether they or others in their household are citizens. -NBC News

Last year the Trump administration attempted to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census for the first time in six-decades, a bid which was struck down by the Supreme Court, which prevented the Department of Commerce from including the question thanks to Chief Justice John Roberts - a Bush II appointee, joining the four-member liberal wing of the court.

The ACLU has vowed to take the Trump administration to court over the new census memo.

"he Constitution requires that everyone in the U.S. be counted in the census. President Trump can’t pick and choose," said ACLU Voting Rights Project director Dale Ho, who knocked the Trump administration.

"He tried to add a citizenship question to the census and lost in the Supreme Court. His latest attempt to weaponize the census for an attack on immigrant communities will be found unconstitutional. We’ll see him in court, and win, again," said Ho.

According to NBC News, the Constitution requires that the census count "persons" living in the United States, and does not mention citizenship status. While lower courts have ruled that illegal immigrants should be counted, the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in.

"The resident population counts include all people (citizens and non-citizens) who are living in the United States at the time of the census," reads the Census Bureau's website. "People are counted at their usual residence, which is the place where they live and sleep most of the time."

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/trump-signs-order-excluding-illegal-immigrants-census 
at

DOJ Response to Judge Sullivan’s Petition for En Banc Review — “You Needed to Seek DOJ Permission to File Your Petition”

AP featured image
 Article by Shipwreckedcrew in "RedState":

Wouldn’t that be a knee-slapper of an outcome?

Judge Sullivan “hoist by his own petard” by virtue of the fact that he needed DOJ approval to petition the DC Appeals Court for en banc review of the writ of mandamus issued by the Court directing him to grant the DOJ motion to dismiss the prosecution of General Michael Flynn.  So far as I can tell based on limited research, it might just be correct.

Before I go deeper into the substance of the Response filed on Monday by DOJ to the Petition for En Banc review filed by Judge Sullivan on July 9, 2020, let me dissect this claim appearing among the final points made in DOJ’s Response because, if correct, hilarity will ensue from dismissal based on that argument.  Later, I’ll have a separate look at the Response filed by Gen. Flynn.

The Government’s Response cites the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Providence Journal Co., where the Court observed there is only one “United States”, and it consists of three co-equal branches of government.  The argument suggested by the Response is that all litigation in which the “United States” has an interest must be authorized by DOJ, which has exclusive authority to litigate on behalf of the “United States,” and whether he likes it or not, Judge Sullivan, in his capacity as a federal district court judge, falls within the definition of “United States” as recognized in that case, and is subject to the same approval process.

In the Providence Journal case, the district court had appointed a “Special Prosecutor” pursuant to statute to handle a “Criminal Contempt” prosecution of a litigant who had defied a court order.  The defendant in the contempt proceeding was found guilty and appealed.  The appellate court reversed the conviction, finding that the order which had been violated — a prior restraint on the paper’s right to publish a story — was transparently unconstitutional.  The Special Prosecutor thereafter filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court to review the Appeals’ Court’s reversal of the conviction.

After briefing, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition based on a lack of jurisdiction.  Under 28 USC § 518(a), any litigation before the Supreme Court in which the United States has an interest must be initiated or approved by the Solicitor General of the United States.  Because the Solicitor General had not authorized the Special Prosecutor to pursue the Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court, the statute deprived the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to consider the Petition.

The Special Prosecutor argued that the interests of the judiciary – specifically the district court’s interest in defending its contempt citation – was not within the “interests” of the “United States” described in § 518(a).  But the Supreme Court disagreed, ruling there is only one “United States” – and that includes the Judicial Branch.  So even in pursuit of a defense of its own authority, the judicial branch must seek permission of the Solicitor General’s Office of the Department of Justice to petition the Supreme Court.

The outcome of that case does not fit perfectly here because this is not a petition to the Supreme Court.  But it underscores the point being made by DOJ that Judge Sullivan is litigating in his official capacity as a representative of the “United States” without the participation, support, or approval of DOJ – and only DOJ represents the “United States” in litigation.  Other agencies have the ability to litigate in their own names as part of their operations pursuant to a statutory grant of authority — such as the Securities & Exchange Commission — but as a general matter, only DOJ represents the “United States” as an entity.

I don’t know that this argument will carry the day.  If DOJ thought this was a “settled” point of law it would have advanced this argument at the beginning of its response because it is jurisdictional — the Appeals Court would not be able to consider the merits of Judge Sullivan’s petition.  Such jurisdictional claims normally get presented first on appeal.  The Response cites only one case, and it’s not directly on point because this is not a case pending before the Supreme Court which only the Solicitor General could approve.

But DOJ is making the point that Judge Sullivan is inappropriately holding himself out as some form of “independent” functionary who has standing to contest orders from the Appellate Court with which he disagrees, and the argument that he failed to seek DOJ approval before filing his Petition is made as part of a broader claim that his Petition is procedurally improper, and many thorny problems arise if it is granted by the Appeals Court.

Beyond this quite interesting legal point addressing the question of “How did we get to this point?”, the Government’s brief is – once again – an extremely well-written, to-the-point dismantling of Judge Sullivan’s attempts to justify his conduct as consistent with ordinary processes.

The Government properly frames the arguments around the question of whether en banc is warranted in this case given the purposes for which en banc is normally based.  The Response argues that the Panel decision is not inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s Rinaldi decision, nor is it in conflict with prior decisions in the DC Circuit – namely the Fokker Services and Ammidown cases.  En Banc review is normally invoked to settle seeming inconsistencies in decisions within a Circuit, or to address Panel decisions alleged to be contrary to Supreme Court precedent that is binding on the Appeals Court.

As to Rinaldi, the Response argues that outcome and reasoning of the Panel decision are both consistent with the language and decision in Rinaldi, which involved the purposes for the “leave of court” language in Rule 48(a) and the scope of the Court’s discretion in deciding such motions.  Rinaldi did not endorse – it did not even discuss – the issue of the propriety of a district court developing a new factual record every time the government files such a motion as is contemplated by Judge Sullivan’s stated intentions in wanting to conduct an evidentiary hearing.

The government argues such a claim would contradict later Supreme Court decisions after Rinaldi that clearly state that the underlying reasoning with regard to a decision to not prosecute “cannot be the subject of judicial review,” quoting the Court’s 1987 decision ICC v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng’rs.

With regard to the Ammidown decision, the Response states that the opinion case says that “Rule 48(a) does not apply as such to the case at bar.”   As such, the Panel’s decision, dealing specifically with the meaning of Rule 48(a) cannot be said to be “in conflict” with Ammidown.  The Response highlights the one key passage of Ammidown critical to the entire rationale behind denying Judge Sullivan the hearing he so badly wants – the fact that merely because his view of what is in the “public interest” differs from the view expressed by DOJ as to what is in the “public interest” in dismissing the case, is not a basis upon which a Judge Sullivan can withhold approval of the motion.

The Government argues that even to the extent there is a conflict between language in Ammidown and the Panel decision relying on the more recent Fokker Services case, the full Court should not resort to an en banc proceeding based on “dicta” in Ammidown from 1973, when the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized over the ensuing 45+ years that the Executive’s charging decisions are not subject to judicial review.

The Response then turns to whether the Panel decision granting mandamus relief was appropriate.  The Panel decision noted that “preventing” a lower court from interfering with a co-equal branch’s ability to discharge its constitutional duties was a sufficient basis to invoke the remedy of mandamus, so the Panel did not need to let Judge Sullivan act first.

The Response pointedly references the claim Judge Sullivan’s petition ignores – that engaging in the process Judge Sullivan has set in motion, and undergoing the examination and hearing Judge Sullivan has scheduled, is the injury to the government separate and apart from whatever the outcome of the motion, as decided by Judge Sullivan, might eventually be.   Judge Sullivan’s treatment of this issue expressed the contumacious view that the entitlement to conduct a hearing on a motion pending in his court was his a matter of “right” as the district court judge, and the Panel decision intruded upon such right.

The Response justifiably points out that the Panel decision was not directed at the question of whether a hearing on a Rule 48(a) motion was ever appropriate, but rather that the hearing contemplated by Judge Sullivan ran afoul of the separation of powers doctrine because it was to “be used as an occasion to superintend the prosecution’s charging decisions” in a way that caused the specific harms as represented by the Government.

“Allowing the process to play out would impose irreparable injury on the government and on petitioner, and granting mandamus from any denial of the government’s dismissal motion cannot adequately remedy those harms.”

The Response asserts that the Panel’s decision was a fact-specific application of the facts in this case – what Judge Sullivan intended to do — to existing case law, the Court’s decision in Fokker Services and Ammidown.  As such, en banc review isn’t warranted under the standards for such review established by the Court in prior cases.

As for the failure of the Government to seek mandamus relief itself – a point of procedure that many who oppose the Government’s motion to dismiss, and who think the Panel’s outcome was wrongly decided think should be controlling – the Government swats away that claim.

Under the Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Government is made a party by the action of Gen. Flynn’s filing of his petition.  There was no need under the Rules for the Government to file a second petition seeking the same relief as that sought by Gen. Flynn.

Further, Gen. Flynn was entitled to invoke the same separation of powers arguments as the Government with regard to the unconstitutional nature of the hearing process Judge Sullivan had set in motion.  Individual litigants, no different than the government, are irreparably prejudiced by having to endure conduct of a court which exceeds its constitutional authority — even if that conduct could also be addressed on direct appeal.

Lastly, the Response addresses the question of whether Judge Sullivan is even entitled to seek this review  This is where the Response argues, as I noted above, that Judge Sullivan failed to obtain DOJ approval to seek judicial relief in his capacity as a representative of the “United States.”

Beyond that pointedly sarcastic argument, the Response does make a strong argument based on the Rules of Appellate Procedure and prior case decisions that district court judges, even when directed to participate in a mandamus proceeding initiated by a party, do not themselves become parties in the matter.

The Government makes the point that the parties and a Panel of the Appeals Court all agree that the litigation should come to an end, yet the district court judge insists that the matter continue.  The Response notes four problems with Judge Sullivan’s efforts in his capacity as judge:

  1.  A judge does not have a personal stake in the outcome of litigation — if he did, then the law requires that he recuse himself from the case.  Absence of such recusal is conclusive on the question of whether or not Judge Sullivan has a “personal stake” he can assert in the matter.  A mandamus order is not directed personally at the district court judge any more than is an order reversing a conviction on appeal, and no one asserts that a district court judge could seek en banc review of such an order.
  2. The Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that only a “party” may seek en banc review.  Amendments made to the Rules in 1996 make it expressly clear that even when a judge is directed to respond to a petition for mandamus relief, as happened here, such a circumstance does not make the judge a “party” to the proceeding.  Since Judge Sullivan is not a “party” under the Rules, he is not entitled to file a petition for rehearing.
  3. Judge Sullivan lacked authorization from the Appeals Court to file his petition for review.  A district court can only participate in a Petition for Writ of Mandamus if invited to do so by the appeals court.  Judge Sullivan did so in response to the Court’s Order that he file a response to Gen. Flynn’s petition.  But there was no such authorization issued by the Appeals Court for him to seek en banc review.
  4. Judge Sullivan did not obtain DOJ authorization to seek review in a matter involving the “interests” of the “United States” as he had a statutory obligation to do as an official of the judicial branch of the “United States.
 While these last four arguments are all interesting questions that would need to be addressed in order to resolve the merits of Judge Sullivan’s claimed entitlement to conduct the hearing he contemplates on the motion to dismiss, the more direct point being made by the Government Response is that none of these questions are worthy of resorting to en banc review to decide.  The Government’s argument is that dismissing the petition avoids all these subjects, and it avoids having them considered and decided in such a “weighty” proceeding as en banc consideration.

The subtext to that argument is that the Judges of the DC Circuit should consider what might await them at another courthouse in Washington DC should they choose to entertain Judge Sullivan’s folly and resort to deciding these four “sticky” procedural problems.

All that can be avoided by simply reinforcing to Judge Sullivan the message of Nancy Reagan’s to the nation in the 1980s — “Just Say No.”

https://www.redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/07/21/doj-response-to-judge-sullivans-petition-for-en-banc-review-you-needed-to-seek-doj-permission-to-file-petition/
at

Mask Mandate Extended to In-Home Requirement in Broward County



Rata for W3P Lives


Broward County Expands Mask
Mandate to Citizens' Own Homes




Rata • 21 JUL 2020


Well, it has finally happened. Mask hysteria has reached a fever pitch as covid related idiocy collides with authoritarian officials living out their megalomaniacal fantasies of controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes. Citizens of Broward County will now be required to wear a mask in their own homes, even if living alone. This is the most asinine and witless expression of local governmental overreach we've seen yet - not to be confused with the most tyrannical expression of local governmental power, which involved citizens being put on house arrest while real criminals were freed in the name of public safety.




This should clearly show that the actions of government in response to this virus, which has a 99%+ survival rate, has nothing to do with science, protecting people, or actually dealing with the virus. Their actions are intended to see how far they can take a situation like this and then use it to see how far they can extend their power over people. For several months in a row we have watched it grow further and further out of hand, and now they are micromanaging what people can do in their own homes.

Surely, what is going on has to become clear, even to those who have been in denial. Of course there will always be those who see what is going on and choose to remain blind purely out of partisan spite. Ironically, those individuals will be treated just like the rest of us in the chance that government is ever able to establish its iron grip over our every action, word, and thought.


Don't Forget to Recommend and Follow us at our
W3P Homepage


at

Science says (again): Open the schools



Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Bill de Blasio constantly tell us they’re following “science” and “the experts” as they decide on New York’s reopening. Well, more and more experts agree on one thing: Kids will suffer if schools don’t open this fall.

The prestigious National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine are the latest to issue a report calling for in-person instruction, saying remote learning is simply ineffective for younger and special-needs students. That echoes last month’s similar advisory from the American Academy of Pediatrics.

“Weighing the health risks . . . against the educational risks,” the new report says, “school districts should prioritize reopening schools full time, especially for grades K-5 and students with special needs.”

It states what’s obvious to parents who struggled with the lack of learning all spring: “Without in-person instruction, schools risk children falling behind academically and exacerbating educational inequities.”

For example, “In grades K-3, children are still developing the skills to regulate their own behavior, emotions and attention, and therefore struggle with distance learning.”

Most studies show the coronavirus poses few health risks to children. With “insufficient” evidence on how easily they might pass it on to others, the academies recommend providing surgical masks to teachers and staff, regular cleaning along with handwashing or hand-sanitizing stations and limiting large gatherings of students.

Mitigate the health risks and the educational risks at once: Open schools with additional safety measures. Our kids can’t afford to lose yet more months of learning.

at

Woke Vs. Racist: What’s the Difference?

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own 
and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall

There’s a great comedy video that went viral this week pointing out the similarities between the woke set and racists. Like all good comedy, it’s funny because it’s true. If you watch any of these Black Lives Matter “protests” you notice one big thing: they’re mostly young white people. Yes, the leaders of the organization “Black Lives Matter” are black, they’re also rich, racist Marxists busy counting piles of money, but the people attacking police officers are mostly white. Listening to the rioters, pundits, politicians, and reporters you notice something odd: they all seem to believe black people are incapable of succeeding without their help. This used to be called the “white savior complex,” now it’s simply called “progressive.”

President George W. Bush famously and correctly called what liberals were doing to minority students in education “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” He was right then; now the left has stepped up their game and fully hardened that bigotry. 

The idea that someone can’t succeed in America because of their skin color, gender, whatever, is as stupid as it is bigoted. Weirdly, it seems to always be espoused by people who’ve “somehow” beaten the odds. How many times have you seen a black Ivy League professor on TV talking about “systemic racism”? How’d they get a tenured, high six-figure gig, book deals, speaking engagements, and a cable news contributor contract in such a rigged system? 

They never answer that question because the only people who’d ask it of them are their colleagues on TV and they’re on the same team. But the answer is obvious: they worked for it; they earned it. 

The woke crowd doesn’t want minorities to realize that, and neither do racists. Both want to keep people down because it serves their needs.

Racists want segregation; wokesters want segregation too. One in the name of bigotry, one in the name of “tolerance.” Does the motive really matter if the outcome is the same? 

In fact, to listen to the demands of the leftists in the streets, you’d think they were the Klan. 

“Black people can’t succeed without government help,” “They can’t get ahead without a government program,” “They’ll only end up in jail if they don’t get handouts.” Again, seemingly different motivations, but all those statements could’ve been uttered by either group.

The infantilizing of black people by the progressive left is actually worse than anything the Klan is doing because the KKK is a non-entity in American life in the 21st century. In my book, I wrote about the size of the KKK. The Southern Poverty Law Center estimates there are between 5,000-8,000 members of the KKK in 2016, down from about 4 million a century earlier. That’s a huge drop – to go from millions to a rounding error smaller than the average attendance of a WNBA game as the population tripled should be cause for celebration. But leftists will tell you racists are everywhere and running the show. 

This isn’t an accident. The left has redefined the word “racist” to the point that it has no meaning. Now, simply denying that you’re racist is a sign of your racism. George Orwell is spinning so fast in his grave you could power the eastern seaboard if you hooked his coffin up to a turbine. 

Democrats didn’t change their hearts when Civil Rights legislation became law, they just changed their tactics. Segregation is still the order of the day, it’s now being advocated for in the name of multiculturalism. Still, Democrats and racists don’t believe black people are capable of taking care of themselves. Does it really matter why? 

Generations of “help” from white leftists haven’t helped, which makes you wonder if it was ever designed to? If the KKK had been in charge of social and economic policy for black Americans, what would they have done differently? They would have both funded Planned Parenthood, they would both defend failing public schools from the competition that could improve education, they’d both sit idly by communities and businesses burned and people were put out of work. 

The results would be about the same as every major majority-black city in the country that has been controlled by Democrats for generations. So, yes, maybe the motives would be different. But looking at the results, you really have to wonder if they are all that different after all.


at

The 'Primary Subsource's' Guide to Russiagate, as Told to the FBI


The FBI notes of February 2017 interviews with his dossier's dubious "Primary Subsource" have finally been released.



Much of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Donald Trump was built on the premise that Christopher Steele and his dossier were to be believed. This even though, early on, Steele’s claims failed to bear scrutiny. Just how far off the claims were became clear when the FBI interviewed Steele’s “Primary Subsource” over three days beginning on Feb. 9, 2017. Notes taken by FBI agents of those interviews were released by the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday afternoon.

The Primary Subsource was in reality Steele’s sole source, a long-time Russian-speaking contractor for the former British spy’s company, Orbis Business Intelligence. In turn, the Primary Subsource had a group of friends in Russia. All of their names remain redacted. From the FBI interviews it becomes clear that the Primary Subsource and his friends peddled warmed-over rumors and laughable gossip that Steele dressed up as formal intelligence memos.

Steele’s operation didn’t rely on great expertise, to judge from the Primary Subsource’s account. He described to the FBI the instructions Steele had given him sometime in the spring of 2016 regarding Paul Manafort: “Do you know [about] Manafort? Find out about Manafort’s dealings with Ukraine, his dealings with other countries, and any corrupt schemes.” The Primary Subsource admitted to the FBI “that he was ‘clueless’ about who Manafort was, and that this was a ‘strange task’ to have been given.”

The Primary Subsource said at first that maybe he had asked some of his friends in Russia – he didn’t have a network of sources, according to his lawyer, but instead just a “social circle.” And a boozy one at that: When the Primary Subsource would get together with his old friend Source 4, the two would drink heavily. But his social circle was no help with the Manafort question and so the Primary Subsource scrounged up a few old news clippings about Manafort and fed them back to Steele.

Also in his “social circle” was Primary Subsource’s friend “Source 2,” a character who was always on the make. “He often tries to monetize his relationship with [the Primary Subsource], suggesting that the two of them should try and do projects together for money,” the Primary Subsource told the FBI (a caution that the Primary Subsource would repeat again and again). It was Source 2 who “told [the Primary Subsource] that there was compromising material on Trump.”

And then there was Source 3, a very special friend. Over a redacted number of years, the Primary Subsource has "helped out [Source 3] financially." She stayed with him when visiting the United States. The Primary Subsource told the FBI that in the midst of their conversations about Trump, they would also talk about “a private subject.” (The FBI agents, for all their hardnosed reputation, were too delicate to intrude by asking what that “private subject” was).

One day Steele told his lead contractor to get dirt on five individuals. By the time he got around to it, the Primary Subsource had forgotten two of the names, but seemed to recall Carter Page, Paul Manafort and Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. The Primary Subsource said he asked his special friend Source 3 if she knew any of them. At first she didn’t. But within minutes she seemed to recall having heard of Cohen, according to the FBI notes. Indeed, before long it came back to her that she had heard Cohen and three henchmen had gone to Prague to meet with Russians.

Source 3 kept spinning yarns about Michael Cohen in Prague. For example, she claimed Cohen was delivering “deniable cash payments” to hackers. But come to think of it, the Primary Subsource was “not sure if Source 3 was brainstorming here,” the FBI notes say.

The Steele Dossier would end up having authoritative-sounding reports of hackers who had been “recruited under duress by the FSB” -- the Russian security service -- and how they “had been using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct ‘altering operations’ against the the Democratic Party.” What exactly, the FBI asked the subject, were “altering operations?” The Primary Subsource wouldn’t be much help there, as he told the FBI “that his understanding of this topic (i.e. cyber) was ‘zero.’” But what about his girlfriend whom he had known since they were in eighth grade together? The Primary Subsource admitted to the FBI that Source 3 “is not an IT specialist herself.”

And then there was Source 6. Or at least the Primary Subsource thinks it was Source 6.

Ritz-Carlton Moscow: The Primary Subsource admitted“he had not been able to confirm the story” about Trump and prostitutes at the hotel. But he did check with someone who supposedly asked a hotel manager, who said that with celebrities, “one never knows what they’re doing.” And that was enough for the rumor to make it into the dossier.
While he was doing his research on Manafort, the Primary Subsource met a U.S. journalist “at a Thai restaurant.” The Primary Subsource didn’t want to ask “revealing questions” but managed to go so far as to ask, “Do you [redacted] know anyone who can talk about all of this Trump/Manafort stuff, or Trump and Russia?” According to the FBI notes, the journalist told Primary Subsource “that he was skeptical and nothing substantive had turned up.” But the journalist put the Primary Subsource in touch with a “colleague” who in turn gave him an email of “this guy” journalist 2 had interviewed and “that he should talk to.”

With the email address of “this guy” in hand, the Primary Subsource sent him a message “in either June or July 2016.” Some weeks later the Primary Subsource “received a telephone call from an unidentified Russia guy.” He “thought” but had no evidence that the mystery “Russian guy” was “that guy.” The mystery caller “never identified himself.” The Primary Subsource labeled the anonymous caller “Source 6.” The Primary Subsource and Source 6 talked for a total of “about 10 minutes.” During that brief conversation they spoke about the Primary Subsource traveling to meet the anonymous caller, but the hook-up never happened.

Nonetheless, the Primary Subsource labeled the unknown Russian voice “Source 6” and gave Christopher Steele the rundown on their brief conversation – how they had “a general discussion about Trump and the Kremlin” and “that it was an ongoing relationship.” For use in the dossier, Steele named the voice Source E.

When Steele was done putting this utterly unsourced claim into the style of the dossier, here’s how the mystery call from the unknown guy was presented: “Speaking in confidence to a compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US presidential candidate Donald TRUMP, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of co-operation between them and the Russian leadership.” Steele writes “Inter alia,” – yes, he really does deploy the Latin formulation for “among other things”  – “Source E acknowledged that the Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee [DNC], to the WikiLeaks platform.”

All that and more is presented as the testimony of a “close associate” of Trump, when it was just the disembodied voice of an unknown guy.

Perhaps even more perplexing is that the FBI interviewers, knowing that Source E  was just an anonymous caller, didn’t compare that admission to the fantastical Steele bluster and declare the dossier a fabrication on the spot.

But perhaps it might be argued that Christopher Steele was bringing crack investigative skills of his own to bear. For something as rich in detail and powerful in effect as the dossier, Steele must have been researching these questions himself as well, using his hard-earned spy savvy to pry closely held secrets away from the Russians. Or at the very least he must have relied on a team of intelligence operatives who could have gone far beyond the obvious limitations the Primary Subsource and his group of drinking buddies.

But no. As we learned in December from Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Steele “was not the originating source of any of the factual information in his reporting.” Steele, the IG reported “relied on a primary sub-source (Primary Sub-source) for information, and this Primary Sub-source used a network of [further] sub-sources to gather the information that was relayed to Steele.” The inspector general’s report noted that “neither Steele nor the Primary Sub-source had direct access to the information being reported.”

One might, by now, harbor some skepticism about the dossier. One might even be inclined to doubt the story that Trump was “into water sports” as the Primary Subsource so delicately described the tale of Trump and Moscow prostitutes. But, in this account, there was an effort, however feeble, to nail down the “rumor and speculation” that Trump engaged in “unorthodox sexual activity at the Ritz.”

While the Primary Subsource admitted to the FBI “he had not been able to confirm the story,” Source 2 (who will be remembered as the hustler always looking for a lucrative score) supposedly asked a hotel manager about Trump and the manager said that with celebrities, “one never knows what they’re doing.” One never knows – not exactly a robust proof of something that smacks of urban myth. But the Primary Subsource makes the best of it, declaring that at least “it wasn’t a denial.”

If there was any denial going on it was the FBI’s, an agency in denial that its extraordinary investigation was crumbling.

Related: FBI Russiagate Memos: Errors in NYT and Dossier Doubts Sharyl Attkisson, JTN
Related: Text of Strzok Notes on 'Inaccurate' 2017 NY Times Story Senate Judiciary Panel
Related: Strzok Note, Feb. '17: Steele's Work Doubted Charlie Savage, Adam Goldman, NYT


at

The New York Times Tries to Rewrite Very Recent History


A news story referring to ‘isolated incidents of violence’ ignores the paper’s own coverage of the riots and looting that broke out after George Floyd’s death.


America's newspaper of record, the New York Times, revised history in real time this week, and very recent history at that. In a news article on the attitudes of voters regarding President Trump and the Black Lives Matter movement, reporters Astead Herndon and Dionne Searcey wrote:
A survey of battleground states critical to November’s election largely mirrored the national results. Fifty-four percent of voters in those states said the way the criminal justice system treats black Americans was a bigger problem than the incidents of rioting seen during some demonstrations. Just 37 percent said rioting was a bigger problem, though Mr. Trump and his allies have tried to discredit the protests by focusing on some isolated incidents of violence. 
However, based on the New York Times’s own reporting alone, that characterization of the prevalence of violence isn't remotely accurate. In fact, in the space of three weeks, the Times went from “the devastation in Manhattan was unlike anything New York had seen since the blackout of 1977” and “widespread violence and vandalism breaking out in American cities” to “some isolated incidents of violence.” Further examples abound.
The same article that noted the “devastation in Manhattan” reported that “police said that more than 400 people were arrested in New York overnight on Sunday, mostly for looting and burglary.” Another article said that even with 8,000 officers deployed, the police were “unable to contain the bands of looters or to stop them from smashing windows and breaking into stores,” even with another 700 arrests.
The number of arrests is not the only indication of how widespread the looting quickly became. A Times article on the impact of the looting said “CVS said that more than 250 locations across 21 states faced varying levels of damage from protest activity,” and “Target ... said over the weekend that about 200 stores would close or have shorter hours as a result of protests and looting.” Soon after, Target stopped reporting the growing number of stores affected.
Other early Times coverage also noted that the violence was not just confined to a few locales: “Businesses across the country suffered destruction over the weekend as protesters unleashed their anger over the death of George Floyd on commercial enterprises — from the offices of major multinational corporations and banks to family-owned restaurants and bars.”
Yet another article reported: “Major chain stores, mom-and-pop groceries, statehouses and police precincts have sustained damage. Police cars have been burned across the country. Mayors of multiple cities have cited damage in the millions of dollars[.]”
By any measure, the protests against police misconduct during the weeks since the death of George Floyd at the hands of, or more precisely, the knee of the Minneapolis police, have been massive. Some events have been peaceful, with some cities, such as Detroit, experiencing little to no violence related to, or taking advantage of, the protests. 
 Further, as the Times article recounts, the response of President Trump has been on balance confrontational and divisive rather than measured and unifying. But instead of entrusting readers with unencumbered facts, the New York Times now seems more intent on creating a narrative of how it wishes events had played out rather than the reality on the ground. (Neither of the reporters nor the Times's communications representative responded to a request for comment.)
The recent episode involving Tom Cotton's now infamous Times op-ed resulted in a revolt by Times staffers, a good deal of introspection by the Times, a shakeup at the highest levels, and a 325 word editor's note on the op-ed expressing regret for its publication and called the editing process that led to it “rushed and flawed.” But an editing process that would allow “some isolated incidents of violence” to slip into a straight news piece on the violence of the past month is a process that is similarly rushed and flawed, helping to paint a picture wildly at odds with the newspaper's own previous reporting—and reality.
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” If the New York Times intends to apply the Moynihan standard to future op-eds, certainly it's appropriate to apply it to its own news reports as well.

at

Tucker Carlson denounces The New York Times for threatening his family's safety and Times responds

 

Article by Andrea Widburg in "The American Thinker":

It’s a line so hackneyed that everyone can recite it. The mob goon goes into a local business to force the owner to pay protection money. The goon looks around and says, “Nice little business ya’ got here. Shame if something happened to it.”

That’s how the mafia operates: It threatens people into compliance. And that’s how the New York Times is trying to silence Tucker Carlson – by threatening his family’s safety so that he’ll stop sharing facts and intelligent conservative analysis with the American people.

Tucker Carlson currently hosts the most-watched cable news program on television, a show that’s recently been breaking one record after another. Carlson is straightforward and witty, and he presents conservative ideas with extraordinary moral clarity. He’s also courageous, saying things that others, even conservatives, are afraid to say –for example, calling Black Lives Matter out as a Marxist revolutionary movement, rather than an organization genuinely interested in improving the lives of black people in America.

Because of his clarity and reach, Carlson threatens the Democrats’ monopoly over the social and political narrative in this country, a monopoly they maintain through the media, education, and Hollywood. For that reason, Carlson must be destroyed, and the New York Times has figured out how to do this: It’s going to “dox” him. Carlson detailed what’s going on in his Monday night show (see below).

For those unfamiliar with the term, “doxing” people means to publish their private information, especially their address or phone number, on the internet, so that their enemies can easily hunt them down. A left-wing journalist already did that once to Carlson.

Armed with that Carlson’s address, a left-wing mob obligingly descended on the Carlsons’ house, forcing Carlson’s wife to call 911 while hiding in the closet. Even after the police disbursed these domestic terrorists, Tucker and his family (which includes four children) continued to receive threatening mail for another year.

The Carlsons finally decided to leave the neighborhood for their children’s safety. Now, the New York Times wants to force them out of their new home. There is no difference between what the Times is threatening and the mob goon saying, 
“Nice little house ya’ got here. Shame if something happened to it.”

Carlson says in the video that he has the addresses of those threatening to dox him. It’s unclear, though, if he intends to fight fire with fire or is just making noise. I hope it’s the former. If this is the new standard of journalism, now is the time to apply Rule 4 of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals: 
Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. To which I would add Rule 4.1: And make sure you give it to them good and hard.

Update from Thomas Lifson:

Following the broadcast, the New York Times issued a vague and confusing statement of denial to Mediaite:


“While we do not confirm what may or may not publish in future editions, The Times has not and does not plan to expose any residence of Tucker Carlson’s, which Carlson was aware of before tonight’s broadcast.”

What is the predicate of "which"? It makes no sense to state that Carlson would have awareness of "any residence." Does it mean that Carlson was aware that the Times has no such plans? If so, the statement should be worded differently, for example,  "As Carlson was aware of before the before the broadcast...." 

I am so old that I remember when the New York Times knew how to write clear, grammatical sentences.
at

NASA Spacewalk Live! Astronauts Chris Cassidy and Robert Behnken


at

Send in enormous numbers of uniformed federal agents and troops to stop the destruction in leftist cities?


Let's talk about why President Trump isn't sending in enormous numbers of uniformed federal agents and troops to stop the destruction in leftist cities.

It's because THAT would play into the hands of the people behind this.

Guess what they've planned?

Image

Operation Himmler was a false flag carried out by the Nazis as a pretext to invade Poland.

German internal-security troops dressed in Polish army uniforms and attacked various border buildings.

They commandeered a radio station and broadcast in Polish, carried out vandalism, and left behind dead concentration-camp prisoners dressed in Polish uniforms.

THAT is the trap that was set for Trump.

Blaming death and destruction on HIM.

And that's why the feds are operating mostly in the shadows.

They've let themselves be filmed on a couple of occasions, but only as distractions.

We don't actually know what's going on. You don't have two months of attacks in Portland unless something big is planned.

The harsh reality is that the violence is entirely the fault of Democratic governors, mayors, police chiefs, and sheriffs.

People need to see what happens when they keep electing this people.

Republicans are not obliged to save Democrats from themselves.

There's quite a risk here.

If the people attacking cities could pull it off, they WOULD carry out an Operation Himmler.

As AOC said, "Why not swing for the fences?"

So they are. This is the last hurrah.

All in. Balls to the wall.

Their only hope now is to stage a massacre by the feds.

This was done ALL THE TIME in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But Trump is too smart to take the bait.

REMEMBER:

You must SHAPE THE BATTLEFIELD before deploying.

The feds have spent MONTHS conducting surveillance and gathering intelligence.

We'll never know what was actually stopped.

But we know that there are "foreign elements" in the middle of all this.

That means Iran, Hezbollah, and the Islamic State.

Have you noticed that there's zero reporting on how the arson and use of IEDs was stopped?

What about "armed men in body armor were seen in cars with no license plates."

AND?!

You think nobody took care of them?

Come on.

We have urban-warfare training centers ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

They're full-scale model cities.

They do live-fire exercises. youtube.com/watch?v=L1pS_c…

But just because something is under control doesn't mean that there's no effort being expended.

Exactly the opposite, in fact.

This is the Big One.

NOT a civil war.

An attempt to set up Trump for a massacre.

But AS ALWAYS, people misjudged Trump.

One, he's not going to do anything impulsive or symbolic.

Two, he's not going to save Democrats from themselves.

And three, he's not going to announce anything beforehand.

Image

ALL OUR ENEMIES ARE ON THE ROPES.

The Islamic State, Iran, Venezuela, China, Russia, and the Democrats.

(The Democratic LEADERSHIP, not the voters.)

They have nothing to lose. Mary the Tank Engine speaks for them:

Image

"Getting him out of office is a matter of life and death."

TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY.

Trump is in control, but you still don't get it.

They're pulling out all the stops. The only thing that will work is a government massacre.

So STOP demanding that Trump give our enemies what they want.

Am I getting through to you?

END

at

The GOP Senate Is Asleep at the Wheel


America’s foundational values are being torn down, canceled, and erased from our culture. Wake up, senators. You have just a handful of weeks to remind us why you’re relevant.



It hasn’t escaped the notice of most Americans that, to put it mildly, things in the country are not going well. But one group of people hasn’t seemed to pick up on it, yet: Congress. To be more precise, the Republican-led Senate.

 As American cities burn, police departments across the country come under assault, the culture feasts on itself in a frenzy of Twitter-driven cancellations, Google controls the presentation of information for 90 percent of the world, Twitter gets hacked by the Saudi government, Planned Parenthood reaps millions in CARES Act money it wasn’t supposed to get, the “conservative” majority on the Supreme Court kicks people of faith in the teeth, and China sends Uyghur Muslims to concentration camps while exerting massive censorship influence over U.S. corporations, Congress has been on vacation for the last two weeks.

 In reality, the House of Representatives has been on vacation for much longer than that. Attendance has been optional in the People’s House for so long that Rep. Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.) recently cast a vote in committee while “working from home”—either on a beach or a boat. 

 The Republican Senate has been showing up for work. Or, what work looks like to the Senate, which is about 2.5 days a week of confirming a handful of judges in between accidentally legislating. 

 The Senate’s fecklessness is less a bug than a feature of the 116th Congress. But for the conservatives among their constituents, it is more outrageous than ever, considering that Senate Republicans may be in the waning days of power.

 And it’s not just that Republicans may lose the majority in November. It’s that the result—for Republicans, conservatives, people of faith, small businesses, and anyone who enjoys living in a pluralistic society where tolerance of multiple viewpoints is the norm—will be to lose everything. 

 Senate Democrats have made it very clear they intend to eliminate the legislative filibuster should they win the Senate in November. If it comes to that, the Senate effectively will turn into a chamber just as majoritarian as the House, with the minority party’s ability to influence legislative outcomes drastically diminished. An untethered Democratic Senate would unleash a parade of horribles: packing the Supreme Court, ending America’s energy economy with the Green New Deal, banishing religious liberty, and so forth.

 It’s not an exaggeration to say that the Republican Senate is all that is standing between us and a Democratic Party that wants to remake our congressional institutions in a way that allows them to remake society.

Is the Republican Senate Alive?

And yet it is unclear if anyone in the Republican Senate recognizes this. The Senate has been on recess for two weeks. As the country burned, they spent two weeks in June passing a bill to expand federal ownership of public lands—essentially an overt bid to get Senator Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) reelected. 

 After Democrats filibustered the GOP’s police reform bill, the Senate blithely washed its hands of anything having to do with the raging culture war, the betrayal of the conservative Supreme Court, or the corporate social media takeover of speech and information and instead turned to the National Defense Authorization Act. Naturally, the troops need to be funded, as apparently do America’s many ill-considered wars and the hive of obscenely rich contractors whose campaign donations make the Washington world go round.

 All told, the Senate has roughly seven to eight weeks, maybe less, left in their legislative calendar before November, with nothing on the docket except military funding, an extension of government funding, and another sub-trillion-dollar bill to address the COVID-19 pandemic. (And also this very important Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on ocean plastics.)

Voters Want to See Republicans Face the Mob, Unbowed

The Republican Senate expects Americans to come out and vote for them—for what? 
Republicans in the Senate have precious little time to show the American people that they’re actually still alive; still a party that pays attention; that they look up occasionally and remember who sent them to Washington, and who pays their salaries.

 At a time when conservative and Republican voters across the country are looking to their institutions to lead, Republicans in the Senate could step up and actually decide to run the place. 

 All of them—every single Republican senator from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on down—has the power to force votes to defend the police, diminish China’s influence, take a stand for people of faith, enforce consequences against Planned Parenthood’s likely criminality, or push back against the corporate takeover of speech, privacy, market access, and independent thought.

 Whether they can win all of these votes isn’t the point. Having them is. Letting voters know that the people elected to represent them are, at a bare minimum, not willfully ignoring the societal turmoil would be a baseline effort—but a welcome one.

 Yes, it will be hard. Senate Democrats will probably say mean things. They will, as Senator Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) did when Mike Lee (R-Utah) stood up to condemn mob violence, use the procedures of the Senate to try to cancel Republican speech. 

 Great. Perfect. What voters desperately want to see—what they need to see—is Republicans unbowed in the face of woke assaults and progressive tantrums. Many times in politics the outcome isn’t the thing—the very act of trying, of digging in your heels and drawing a line in the sand, is enough. As Ben Domenech put it recently, “The thirst among Republican voters isn’t even for policy. It’s for seeing the politicians they elected join the fray.”

 There is a fire raging in all corners of the society, and the one Republican-led institution we badly need to stand up for America seems distracted, preoccupied, and, frankly, fearful. But we elect our legislators for times such as these; to be the leaders and statesmen who stand up and say “Enough. Not on my watch.” We need them to courageously defend the wholly American virtues of equality under the law, of justice for all, and to ferociously protect the freedom of individual Americans from the tyranny of mobs, the authoritarian thought control of woke corporations, and the corrupt power of the state.

 But so far, we have a Republican Senate that only rouses itself every now and again to pass more corporate tax relief, mumble something about the inherent moral virtue of “private business,” or wave aimlessly in the direction of more war and spy-state bureaucracy.  

 America’s foundational values are being torn down, canceled, and erased from our culture. Wake up, senators. You have just a handful of weeks to remind us why you’re relevant.

at