Former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe penned an op-ed for The Washington Post to contest the allegation of his “lack of candor” with federal investigators. I have been writing (here and here and here) on the contrast between the treatment of McCabe and former national security adviser Michael Flynn. McCabe has been erroneously portrayed as “losing his pension” but has not been charged. Flynn was charged and accepted a plea deal under 18 U.S.C. 1001 for making a false statement to investigators. Now McCabe is raising virtually the same defense that did not work for Flynn: that there was a lot going on and he was “confused and distracted.”
Given his willingness to hold forth publicly on his actions, McCabe does not appear to expect to be charged even though the Inspector General could refer a criminal allegation to prosecutors.
He lashes about at President Donald Trump and critics to assert ‘I did not knowingly mislead or lie to investigators.” He then added this familiar defense: “At worst, I was not clear in my responses, and because of what was going on around me may well have been confused and distracted — and for that I take full responsibility.”
That is reportedly the same defense raised by Flynn who admitted to meeting with Russian diplomats during the busy transition period but did not disclose or confirm that they spoke about sanctions. He reportedly also did not make such a disclosure to Vice President Pence. There was nothing unlawful in the meeting with the Russians or even unprecedented for an incoming national security adviser to discuss such points of tension between the countries. Flynn did not seek legal assistance before the interview and was reportedly not told that the investigators were there as part of a possible criminal inquiry.
Once again, it is not a sufficient argument to note that Flynn was facing other charges. Prosecutors are under a sworn duty to apply laws faithfully and fairly. They are not allowed to simply charge any crime that is convenient. They must be able to attest to applying the criminal code in a consistent fashion. Prosecutors are ethically bound to reject criminal charges (even when they can be technically brought) where they reflect “unwarranted disparate treatment of similarly situated persons.”
We do not know how strong the other alleged crimes were against Flynn. We have one crime that the prosecutors maintained was established on the facts in the indictment. Those facts are strikingly similar on that crime to McCabe. Of course, we are still awaiting the release of the IG report but McCabe’s misconduct was sufficient to not only lead career FBI staff to call for his termination but FBI Director Andrew Wray reportedly immediately forced him into a terminal leave upon reading the summary.
I have admittedly been a longtime critic of the use of 18 U.S.C. 1001 and how it has been used by prosecutors to indict for any statement deemed misleading or false. However, the greatest danger is posed not in the broad scope of this law but its arbitrary enforcement. Two officials are accused of misleading statements in interviews. One is bled financially to the point that he must sell his house and then forced into a criminal plea. The other gets a delay in his pension. Both were very very busy people, but only one is looking at prison.
Simple question, why is it a crime to lie to the government but not a crime for the government to lie to us? If I testify falsely before Congress, it’s a crime…if Nancy Pelosi or Paul Ryan (I’ll be bi-partisan here) get on the Floor of House and lie to the American people it’s considered normal business. (Lying on the campaign trail should be different than lying on the House floor.)
“if Nancy Pelosi or Paul Ryan (I’ll be bi-partisan here) get on the Floor of House and lie to the American people it’s considered normal business.”
Actually, this specific example demonstrates a protection listed in the base US Constitution.
Article 1, Section 6
“… and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
This is why when Harry Reid knowingly flat out lied about Mitt Romney’s tax returns he did it on the Senate floor.
It is not a crime to lie to government. Though it is always dangerous.
It is a crime to lie to a government agent – that would include the postman not just the FBI, in such a way that their perfomance of their job is impaired.
Flynn did not violate 18 USC 1001 because the agents already had the transcript.
Lying to them in that circumstance – is a reason for them to investigate you further.
It is not a crime.
The whole thing is illegal. Rosenstein violated the law by appointing Mueller as special counsel without naming the crime he is appointed to investigate. The special counsel statute clearly states that it is only for a criminal investigation. If you can’t name a crime, how do you know that it’s a criminal investigation and therefore satisfies the stauatory requirement? In other words, how do you know it’s a criminal investigation if you can’t name a crime? Secondly, the special counsel statute clearly states that any conflict of interest is disqualifying. Mueller has clear conflicts of interest. Mueller also is a lawyer, as is Rosenstein, meaning that Mueller knowingly accepted the appointment in clear violation of the special counsel statute. Both should be fired for violating the statute and the bar code of ethics and referred to the bar ethics board for disbarrment proceedings.
You make good points regarding the law.
But usually the previsions of our law have real world and principled foundatations.
The purpose of the law is to construct a means of investigating where there is a conflict of interests that precludes FBI/DOJ from doing so themselves.
Where there is no crime – there can be no conflict.
A conflict over policy must always be resolved in favor of the president. The power of the executive branch rests with the president.
Only congress or the judiciary can overrule him on matters of policy – not DOJ. FBI, NSA, ….
As an example if the president says – I do not want to investigate “russian interference” in the US election.
Congress can investigate, or congress can pass laws to create a duty to investigate and the judiciary can enforce them.
But otherwise the president is free to do as he pleases. The AG can resign if he does not like that, but his constitutional obligation is to follow the policy direction of the president.
An actual criminal investigation is different – the president(nor anyone else in government) is not above the law.
Further investigations of people are quite different from other investigations.
Government may only engage in criminal investigations of people.
Any other investigation of a person by government must be voluntary – you can consent to most anything to get a government job as an example.
Specail prosecutors investigate crimes – because that is the only thing that requires a special prosecutor.
Further they only investigate crimes that involve persons when DOJ/FBI have a conflict.
We do not get a special prosecutor because we want one, or because we do not trust the president.
We get one because there is a criminal allegation that can not be investigated by DOJ/FBI beause of conflicts.
The investigation that the house/senate are asking for of the Clinton email and foundation investigations would be a perfect example.
We have solid allegations of crime, and we have a DOJ/FBI that can not investigate themselves.
The Mueller investigation is actually a continuation of the corruption of the original DOJ/FBI investigation.
This started with the Steele Dossier – and there is the problem.
Clinton was free to produce it.
But FBI/DOJ was not free to use unverified OPO research to investigate a political rival.
That is political corruption.
That is what Nixon was NOT able to get the FBI to do with watergate.
The FBI was required to establish that atleast one criminal claim in the dossier was credible before it could proceed.
Even today we do not have a single criminal allegation that reaches the standard required for probable cause.
The Mueller investigation is not effectively insulated from the corrupt roots of the initial investigation.
Even if Mueller were a saint – he must start with a criminal allegation and probable cause that it is true.
Anything less is political corruption – exactly like watergate.
“The Mueller investigation is actually a continuation of the corruption of the original DOJ/FBI investigation.”
This appears true and if true can only be a result of political corruption.
I have criticized Mueller here and elsewhere.
But I do not think he is particularly partisan. We fail to grasp that bias comes in many forms – beside right left.
Mueller is part of the “system” or as Trump would say “the swamp” and the system is under attack.
Mueller is from his perspective defending institutions he values against attack.
That is still bias. He was appointed to follow the law, not defend institutions he values.
I have also looked at Mueller’s past. There is plenty fo reason to reject attacks on him as partisan.
There is also plenty of basis to grasp Mueller is a greater danger to himself than Trump
He is only successful by the standards of washington – where everyone fails up.
From Ruby Ridge through Wacco, Anthrax, …. he has been associated with nearly all the failures of the FBI for decades as well as having several of his own. He is inflexible, bullheaded, prone to error, and will run off the tracks chasing stupid.
“But I do not think he is particularly partisan. ”
His type of persona functions more easily in an autocratic environment more frequently associated with the left, so yes I would call him a partisan on that basis alone. Take note that it appears all or almost all of his investigators are Democrats.
I guess the Democrats pay better and more frequently.
I am disturbed at the prevalence of democrats.
Though he may actually have difficulty getting capable republicans as they do not want to touch this – no matter how they feel about Trump.
There is an enormous risk for those associated with this.
It does not take much intelligence to grasp that even if you found evidence of the worst things that are actually possible – this will be “ho hum”
And if you fail – the entire life is going to blame you.
This is not an investigation that is likely to make those involved look good.
Look at how it has turned out for everyone in DOJ/FBI associated with it.
If one looks close, Mueller’s history is disturbing.
@John Say, March 27, 2018 at 7:41 PM
I hadn’t previously appreciated sufficiently the risk exposure of Mueller and his team.
Thanks very much for your very thoughtful and informative posts.
If you are confused that easily. .maybe you did do it and forgot?
I have a question for the legal minds. If a judge were to rule that the FISA warrants were obtained because the court was mislead…. could any of the information gathered be tossed out…. and if the data gathered during the taps or whatever… were tossed…. what about the path that this sent investigators down… ?
I am not sure if I am being clear, but I wonder if Mueller could use evidence that was ultimately obtained because of the FISA warrant? Thanks not a lawyer… just curious
This would be, in the legal world, as “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”. Such evidence is not generally admissible in court.For example, if a police officer conducted an unconstitutional (Fourth Amendment) search of a home and obtained a key to a train station locker, and evidence of a crime came from the locker, that evidence would most likely be excluded under the fruit of the poisonous tree legal doctrine.
In principle you are correct.
In practice supression is rare, the courts normally find some exigent circumstance, or inevitable discovery or some other reason to allow the tainted evidence in.
Strzok was McCabe’s top enforcer. Recall that Strzok personally participated in: 1) Flynn’s ambush interrogation; 2) Hillary’s FBI “interview” post the Bubba-Lynch meeting; 3) redaction of Comey’s statement to downgrade Hillary to “careless” — not “grossly negligent”; 4) enforcement of “insurance policy” to make Trump’s presidency a very brief one. The dirt runs very deep in the Deep State.
The matter, for now, is settled. McCabe was fired for not doing his job, for incompetent conduct which he admits in his own words. Zillions of employees are fired for incompetence; this is not a big deal except for the employee on the street.
There is a legal nicety here. McCabe was fired for not being candid under oath. In the real world that is called lying but would be a crime, perjury, in the aesthetic world of lawyering. Whether he is charged for crimes is, as of now, unknown.
This is the legal difference between McCabe and Flynn.
The two cases are very different. Comey testified before congress that the FBI determined that Flynn told them the truth. Both the Inspector General of the Justice Department and the FBI determined that McCabe lied to them on several occasions, including under oath.
McCabe also testified to congress and his congressional testimony can not be reconciled with Comey’s
regardless, with respect to comparisions to Flynn – McCabe’s misrepresentations were far more significant.
Flynn purportedly misrepresented the details of communications that were not inappropriate regardless of the details, and that the FBI had wiretapped – therefore the investigation was not mislead.
McCabe’s remarks if false were a coverup of alteast further serious misconduct, and possibly of a crime.
McCabe’s remarks are also about a matter which we do not yet know the truth – therefore if false they are mot merely misrepresenations they are also misleading.
And misleading is the critical criteria for 18 USV 1001.
Very informative. Thank you
Turley is flat out lying that Flynn offered the confused and mistaken defence to the accusation he lied under oath. No one has reported that because it is a blatant lie. As Turley mentions at the bottom of the column, Flynn was guilty of many felonies, the least serious of which was the lying charge. Flynn had no interest in providing a defence to the lying charge since it would only result in him spending an increased amount of time in jail. Further Turley is lying when he claims that federal prosecutors are ethically obligated to treat similar crimes equally or the same. Prosecutors routinely treat identical crimes differently based on how cooperative the culprit is. It is clear that the sole purpose of such an overwhelmingly dishonest article is to deceive anyone so stupid as to not recognise the fraud being perpetrated by this author.
Flynn was by rumour only accused of many felonies.
Possibly more important – Mueller was purportedly accusing his son of some.
IF you are actually familiar with most of those allegations – they are either demonstrably false or not crimes.
Flynn plead because Mueller has a reputation for relentlessly persuing stupid prosecutions.
There is always a small risk or losing, and there is the certainty of being financially destroyed.
There are not many people on the planet with the legal resources to stand up to a federal prosecutor run amuck.
I beleive Andrew McCarthy has an excellent column on the various Mueller pleas.
The point of which is they demonstrate the Mueller is severely overcharging (or violating DOJ rules as well as the rules of professional ethics).
A prosecutor is REQUIRED to structure a plea to the most serious proveable offense.
A Plea deal is about sentencing recomendations NOT about reducing the charging.
There are extremely important public policy and legal reasons for this.
A plea deal precludes prosecution of the defendant for any even tangentially related offenses.
Once a specific crime is plead to not Mueller nor anyone else in DOJ can charge Flynn with any related offense – no matter how serious. Mueller’s leverage on Flynn is limited to the most serious crime he has plead to., As is the leverage of any other prosecutor that seeks to use Flynn as a cooperating witness.
A plea obligates you to cooperate not merely in the instance charges – but any related offenses – even being pursed by another investigator. Finally Mueller does NOT get to decide whether Flynn is cooperating – Judge Sullivan does, and Judge Sullivan is a stickler for the rules on plea deals and a strong advocate against prosecurorial misconduct and not a friend of the FBI.
There are serious rumors floating arround that the Flynn deal may go down the tubes.
There is a rumor that McCabe altered Strzok’s 302’s – if that is even slightly credible, prosecution of Flynn is OVER, the deal will go out the window, and Sullivan will likely bar Mueller from further prosecution of Flynn.
Further is Sullivan finds misconduct in the Flynn prosecution – all of Mueller’s prosecutions could go out the window.
Regardless, your specualtion about other things Flynn “might” have done is actually weaker than the speculation of prosecutorial misconduct – we already have McCabe lying about leaking to the press.
That is actually TWO crimes, both of which are more serious than the allegations against Flynn.
I would further note that Strzok and McCabe are critical witnesses against Flynn.
And McCabe has already been publicly accused of “crimes in falsification” – and as a practical matter it is logically impossible for both Comey and McCabe to have testified truthfully – one of them must be lying about the leaks. Regardless, McCabe may not even be permitted to testify.
He has a very strong personal bias against Flynn, he has a documented history of retaliation.
The McCabe dismissal may well mean the end of the case against Flynn.
Brown Lyn is projecting. She or he is hateful and a liar from the left so she can’t believe anyone would act honorably. She is not interested in proof to the contrary. On faith, she marches forward willing to destroy a man who has honorably served his country for decades while she reaps the benefit. Disgraceful but true.
Projecting is what the fascists of the left do. Smeared so badly in their own moral feces …. everybody smells. They are Trotskyists to the core – which is how Communists can hate and fear Russia so much.
There is no evidence that General Flynn connitted any crime at except a very tenuous claim that he “lied” to Federal Officers”. Then in typical DOJ procedure he was blackmailed into pleading guilty to avoid personal bankruptcy and protect his his family. He is far less culpable than agent McCabe
You are confused about the law and professional ethics.
There is a difference between treating crimes differently – based on the strength of the evidence.
There is a difference between sentencing recomendations for the same crime based on differences in degrees of cooperation.
Where the fact pattern is the same or nearly the same the prosecutor must charge the same, and lea the same. There is limited wiggle room because nothing is ever identical.
This derives from a fundimental principle of our governance – the rule of LAW, not man.
What you are advocating is lawlessness.
What many of us find most hypocritical – and I even find Turley too favorable to left wing nut lunatic legal arguments, is that the rule of law means they law applies equally to all.
While I vigorously oppose many of the stupid ridiculously broad legal arguments the left makes.
The easiest test for their validity is would they apply them the same way to those of their own tribe.
There is more evidence of Collusion between Russia and Clinton in the Uranium One deal than there is with respect to Trump and Russia in the election.
To be clear I am not asserting that Clinton/Russia collusion has been proven – it has not, it is merely alleged and there is circumstantial evidence to imply strength to that allegation.
Regardless, any legal arguments that a case has been proven regarding Trump equally mean that the same case has been proven against Clinton.
And that is only one incident.
The law is intended to be used narrowly – not broadly, otherwise we rapidly criminalize all conduct.
I would further note that with respect to Flynn – no one even knows what Flynn purportedly lied about.
Trump could not even understand why he was firing Flynn when the details were explained to him.
To the extent that can be established, Flynn did not precisely describe the details of a conversation with Sislyak, that he was directed by others to have, where the scope of the conversation remained inside the parameters of Flynn’s instructions and where the FBI had recorded the conversation.
No one is alleging anything was wrong with the conversation itself.
There are actually specific requirements for 18 USC 1001 convictions – and those elements are not present here.
Critical – and common to all crimes of falsification are that the mis-statement must mislead investigators.
When they already know the answer to what investigator’s are asking – there is no crime.
The FBI is not allowed to entrap people.
At best, Turley is prejudging the content of the IG’s report.
True, but it is pretty well established that the IG report is daming enough to fire McCabe.
Further in this entire fiasco, you are unlikely to prove wrong if you consistently assumed rumors or impending doom for Trump were false and those rumors benefiting him were true.
It is not “hollow” when you consider he is the beneficiary of a legal system designed for people like him, not people like me. We do not have the same justice system. Lady Justice has no blindfold. Instead, she has a directory of “who’s who” in DC.
And us citizens will never have the breaks the elites get.
As a high school teacher, I side step the questions my students ask about legal equality. I prefer not to lie to them.
chuckiechan – I only sidestepped my students when I was told to by the administration. Other than that, they got the truth as I knew it. If the truth changed, I updated them. You get as much justice as you can afford. It is a cold hard fact.
Inconsistent application of the law is lawless.
While perfectly consistent application is not possible – it is the goal.
Every ideology has been guilty of fomenting the rule of man not law, but that is not what we are supposed to be about. That is not our aspiration.
You say that the elite get different shake than the rest of us – sometimes that is true.
Sometimes they get greater scrutiny.
Regardless, there are myriads of instances in which one group seeks to apply the law to their enemies in a way they do not apply it to themselves. That is lawlessnes – whether done by democrats or republicans, the rich or the poor, black or white.
And we need to terminate discretion in all forms.
The meaning of the law shoudl be taken as narrowly as possible, and applied as uniformly as possible.
If you do not like the results – change the law, not the courts.
See also George Parry’s excellent article in the American Spectator, “The Real Andrew McCabe.”
McCabe made his comments with a team of lawyers beside him after probably practicing his testimony for a weak. Big difference than an impromptu meeting that was a gotcha meeting from McCabe staff member Strzok who had a vendetta against Flynn.
A rumor floated around a few days ago to the effect that Mr. McCabe (or someone else?) altered the report on Flynn’s testimony to the FBI (which was handled by Strzok) to make it seem more like lies. Is this true? Is this related to his lack of candor?
It would be truly remarkable if this is so, that McCabe is not prosecuted for acting to frame Flynn.
That some such thing happened was given a while back as a reason why the Judge in Flynn’s case was unwilling to inflict a sentence despite Flynn’s guilty plea.
If this is true anyone else at the FBI knows about this, and Flynn’s attorneys were not informed about it, the case against Flynn will collapse. Prosecutors who do not supply defendants with information discovered favorable to them are supposed to be disbarred.
No, it is not true. Flynn was charged with lying because it was the least serious charge that could be proven against him. Multiple more serious charges were then dropped in return for his cooperation.
The standard is that he must be charged with the MOST serious crime that can be proved against him.
Plea deals result in reduced sentences based on prosecution recomendations for cooperating witnesses, they also releive the courts from trying weak cases.
They do not permit prosecutors to engage in “lets make a deal”.
There are extremely important reasons for that – including that under pleading bars further prosecution and reduces the incentive to cooperate.
Flynn was not indicted, other charges were never filed, they were not dropped.
We do not even know what charges Mueller was contemplating – it would be a criminal leak on Mueller’s part if we did. Any belef you have otherwise is just a rumor. Most of the rumours regarding this entire mess have been false – “fake news”
Well, if you really mean your argument then I guess you’ve decided Flynn is already under the bus, which has manifold implications for Trump. But really, a categorical sameness in the arguments says nothing about the veracity of either case. It could or could not be true foe either one of them. Pretty thin stuff, but I guess that’s what you have to work with these days, eh?
McCabe has inextricably linked himself to Flynn in other ways.
I am prepared to jail Clinton for mishandling classified information, primarily because she sought to Jail her video scapegoat Nakoula.
McCabe harassed a subordinate FBI agent, sought retribution against her for filing a complaint, sought revenge against Flynn because he provided a good reference for this agent.
It is absolutely critical that McCabe be held to the standard he sought to force on others.
Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with Nakoula being charged and jailed. It should be further pointed out that the perpetrators of the attack have repeatedly said they attacked the building because they were angry about the video. These statements by the perpetrators occurred during the stack and have been repeated since the attack. I’m pretty sure that the Obama administration did not have the ability to force these guys to make these statements.
You’re a real delusional idiot aren’t you. Did Hillary tell you you’re a ‘special’ unicorn? Awww.
Which is why she told the father of one of the victims that she would personally assure that Nakoula would be prosecuted vigourously – or are you saying that the father of a navy seal is lying ?
The perpetrators of the attack were an Al Queda cell.
There were over 200 attackers, they were heavily armed – including with weapons that took serious preparation to get, They had Mortar targets perfectly zero’d in – which means they had previously infiltrated the target.
The claim that the video had something to do with this is ludicrously stupid – the video had not reach libya sufficient to plan an attack like this.
This was a well planned attack – likely months in the making.
Clinton said exactly that in communications to the Egyptian president on the night of the attack.
Of course Ansar al shari is going to claim the video was a factor – it makes them look even more righteous to muslims.
Regardless, it is a well established fact this was a planned terrorist attack and had nothing to do with the video.
The video was atleast a small factor in riots in Egypt.
But you do not seem to be able to tell the difference between riots and military attacks.
A clue might be that stones and molotov cocktails are significantly different from AK’s SAR’s and mortar’s
That old men, women and children are different from armed trained terrorists.
“Of course Ansar al shari is going to claim the video was a factor – it makes them look even more righteous to muslims.”
Which means that Clinton aided and abetted the enemy perhaps without even trying to. I believe she had also sent an email to her daughter that expressed the fact that Clinton well knew the attack was caused by something other than the video.
I am going to throw a flag.
I get really really tired of this left crap that if Trump does something that does not actually harm the Russians or god forbid worse might in some conceivable way actually help them – it is treason, or some other crime.
This argument also applies to “obstruction” – and lots of other stupid court decisions we have had that have mostly been overturned.
When the president – or his agents, act in furtherance of their duties and legitimate executive powers,
it is irrelevant whether that act might help an enemy, or purportedly interfere with justice.
If an act of a president would be valid, legal or legitimate if an entirely different president did it, then it would be legitimate if Trump does it.
Any president can fire the FBI director at any time for any reason or none at all.
That can have political consequences – including impeachment, but it can not ever be a crime.
If any president can bar or restrict immigration from majority muslim countries, then Trump can.
There is no, act X is legitimate if president Y did it, but not if President T did it.
Part of this is because of confusion on the part of the left.
Trump’s statements regarding minorities are evidence of bias. They are not proof of it.
Acts are proof, and to be proof they have to be wrong no matter who does them.
Clinton may have acted badly – actually she pretty clearly did.
But no one beleives that she intentionally aided Al Queda.
Again some left confusion.
The Ben Ghazi investigations served two purposes – to assess the competance of those involved,
and to determine whether anything needed change for the future.
Ben Ghazi was not a criminal investigation.
Clinton’s actions were not criminal – but they were egregiously stupid.
The Mail server investigation was criminal.
One of the clear problems with that investigation is that a crime had self-evidently been committed.
All that the investigation needed to do was assess the severity and responsibility
Trump/Russia does not have a crime.
It is a counter intelligence investigation. There is no basis for an SC.
The mishandling of the Clinton Email investigation is a potential criminal investigation,
and significant parts of DOJ/FBI are implicated, at the very least it must be done by untainted people unaffiliated with the Clinton investigations. But really an SC is needed.
Al Queda has said many many things about why it acts – none of those statements are forced either.
Al Queda constantly uses US support for Israel as a justification for every act.
But Bin Laden and Al Queda worked with the US to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan.
The conflict between Al Queda and the US is because the US rejected Bin Laden’s proposal to drive Sadam from Kuwait in the same way the Russians were driven from Afghanistan.
Bin Laden did not want US military in Saudi Arabia anymore than he wanted Russians in afghanistan.
Al Queda is not about Israel and has never directly attacked Israel, and it is not about derogatory videos.
These are left wing nut meme which Al Queda is happy to exploit.
Only a moron would not expect US installations in unstable mideastern countries might be attacked on or near September 11.
There is one phrase that describes the entire situation here. “only one is looking at prison”! Andrew McCabe must be held accountable for his crimes. Unfortunately, that is unlikely to take place.
Throughout 2016, we read FBI related news stories that seemed incredible, although in every instance, the reporters never remarked on what it was that seemed incredible. For example, the rapidity with which the FBI reviewed the hundreds of thousands of State Dept. emails found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. The enormity of the amount of money that an FBI executive’s wife’s campaign for an obscure state office received and the fact that the money came from a PAC controlled by a close and long time confident of the subject of an investigation being handled by the Bureau. A meeting between the husband of the subject of an investigation and the Attorney General, (a meeting which we’ve since learned the FBI attempted to hide from the press). It appears that as the Obama Administration came to an end, America had developed a two-tiered justice system, one for well connected Democrats, and another one for everyone else.
The revelation of the coup d’etat in America has brought the apologists for the protagonists out en masse.
Hillary’s election night tantrum was a metaphor for the newly-exposed “deep state” traitors.
President Trump’s win changed their whole world.
Of course. Why else would Hillary continue to parade her hemorrhage for the globe to see? Hillary has more blood in her than Shakespeare’s King Duncan.
Hillary and Bill Clinton have a “one way marriage” for the very reason that they are sick, sick, sick. Her apologists, as confirmed by Donna Brazille, are cultists.
People cringe at the thought of Germany producing an Adolf Hitler but forget he didnt come to power solo. The German people supported him. Josef Stalin nary gets mentioned but it was Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn who educated the outside world post World War II about Stalin. In other words, it is never the citizens who see the cult within themselves for following crazed leaders.
America is no different. Clintons & Company are a stain to America and we will be fighting a long time.
“Lady Macbeth: “Out, damned spot! out, I say! One; two: why, then, ’tis time to do ’t. Hell is murky! Fie, my lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account? Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him?”
If only Hillary were as penitent and remorseful as Lady M
https://youtu.be/dzQoQFBuqZc?t=45s
Brilliant comment!
More from Macbeth: “vaulting ambition”
True. No outsiders (like Trump) need apply b/c they are not welcome ‘in the system.’ And the insiders are showing us just what living hell will befall any other outsider who tries what Trump did. All the more reason to support Trump IMO.
George said, “The revelation of the coup d’etat in America has brought the apologists for the protagonists out en masse.”
George, if there’s a conspiracy to frame Trump for a crime that’s not a crime and that Trump did not commit, anyway, then why has Trump not yet been charged with any crime at all–not even a crime that would be a crime, nor even a crime that Trump might very well have committed?
Would George now assert that the mere act of investigating The POTUS, any POTUS, is an instance of misprision of justice? Is it even possible to commit misprision of justice without bringing criminal charges against The POTUS, any POTUS? And, if so, would such a claim of misprision of justice simply by means of investigating The POTUS have offered any shelter to a President Hillary Rodham Clinton from any investigation into President Crooked H. lock her up???
We conduct investigations based on credible evidence.
What credible evidence is there to justify any of this.
After exculpating Hilary McCabe and cronies turned their sights to Trump.
After 2 years the only basis we have for initiating that investigation is the Steele Dossier, brought to the FBI by the Clinton Campaign.
No one opposes reasonable investigations,. But we do not live in a police state, we do not subject people to criminal investigations because we do not like them, because we disagree with them politically.
In the unlikely event Mueller ever finds anything of substance those of us angry because there never was sufficient basis to start this will unfortunately be drown out.
But as seems more likely, Mueller comes up empty it will be self evident to nearly everyone that there never was a basis to investigate.
I do not like Trump. I did not vote for him. At best he is the lessor of two evils.
Though it should not matter if I am a stalwart Trump supporter, or rabidly anti-Trump.
An investigation begins with a credible allegation of a crime.
Thus far we have no basis besides the Steele Dossier to start this.
The Steele Dossier is only sufficient if the allegations in it are credible.
To date no Steele Dossier claim of malfeasance has been verified successfully.
That was necescary to START this – and two years later, it still has not occurred.
By the standards Trump is being held to – Clinton and half the Obama administration should be in jail.
If we are going to jail people, then we should do so consistently.
Where are the indictments of the Podesta Group ?
The 18 USC 1001 standard used to extract pleas from Papadoulis and Flynn applies to Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Clinton, many of her aides, and McCabe.
Worse still, Flynn was caught up in an ambush interview setup by McCabe.
McCabe’s misstatements were made with lawyers in a prepared interview.
Further there is no allegation yet that Trump or cronies abused power.
All of the misconduct refered to above was by people acting under the mantle of the federal government.
Very good post John!
Excellent, but the left doesn’t have principles, they only have their false religious ideology. That is why they can be inconsistent and not feel any guilt.
For the most part I concur with your observations regarding the left.
Many scholars have observed that man is by nature religious. The left having destroyed god, had to make a religion of ideology.
I am thoroughly appalled at the complete lack of intellectual rigor in the modern left.
Academia – which like it or not is constructed of fairly smart people, teach total self contradictory bunk today. Further this tolerance for inconsistancy and replacement of critical thinking with beleif has even managed to permiate the sciences. We are constantly following some religious divergence in science for 30 or 40 years before confronting the fact that some segment of science had been taken over politically or religiously by some cult.
At the same time, I do nto think the left is entirely without principles – though they are definitely getting worse. Merely the growth of progressivism as a religion has rotted the critical thinking necescary to confront and purge contradiction from ones values and principles.
Still I would note that the modern left atleast in part is born from an intellectual tradition that once respected individual liberty and actual free speach and free expression.
“Many scholars have observed that man is by nature religious. The left having destroyed god, had to make a religion of ideology.”
It is even worse than that for to make the ideology survive they have to destroy the belief in anything but the ideology along with destroying the individual.
“Still I would note that the modern left atleast in part is born from an intellectual tradition that once respected individual liberty and actual free speach and free expression.”
To effectuate the dream the leaders of the left utilize those things “born from an intellectual tradition” to entrap the weak minds that cannot think for themselves. One should not be fooled by them for if I remember correctly the communist government of Russia first expressed libertine ideas and later more prudish ideas with the intention of disrupting and creating disorder within society.
I am addressing the american left historically.
In the late 18th century liberalism and progressivism were competing ideologies – the “liberalism” or Locke, Smith, Mill – classical liberalism.
FDR was inherently progressive but co-opted the label liberalism and culminated the purge of actual liberals from the democratic party. But FDR’s progressivism actually failed, whether WWII ended the great depression or not, it restored america’s sense of individualism and effectively ended progressivism in the US.
Europe and the US had vastly different war experiences.
While the US came together to defeat the Axis, we did so as individuals, even FDR grasped that he needed capitalism to produce the goods necescary to defeat the axis.
In England there was a stronger sense of coming together collectively, many businesses had contributed to the Nazi’s and were viewed with suspicion.
In Europe democratic socialism defeated national socialsim.
In the US a free people truimphed over statists.
Further many of the most repugnant elements of nazi-ism were present in pre-war progressivism,
The post war US left was far less socialist and progressive.
The civil rights movements in the 50’s and 60’s were focused on freedom.
The ACLU fought for the right of Nazi’s to march through Skokie.
Today they are fighting against Nazi’s right to march.
The extreme left slowly took over accademia starting in the late 60’s and replaced the class struggle portion of marxism – which does not resonate in the US with identitarian struggle – conflicts over minority status – and nearly everyone falls into some form of minority.
It took decades for this shift to percolate through the entire left.
But it has and the modern left is barely distinguishable from early progressives.
Trump’s victory was in part by inverting the left’s victimization ideology.
The modern left is rooted in a hierachy of victimhood.
The objective of the left is to construct a majority by slicing the pyramid at a point low enough to get a majority of votes. The fallacy that Trump took advantage of is that just as nearly all of us are minorities, nearly all of us are also part of some oppressive majority.
The broader the group of oppressed victims the left creates the larger is the group that can not help but note that they are members of the hated oppressor class.
Just as Romney’s 47% remark was damaging, so was Clinton’s deplorable remark.
But the deplorable comment is more fatal, because it is intrinsic with the left’s ideology and an irrepairable problem. The left in demanding tolerance and labeling much of the country “hateful, hating haters”, is inherently intolerant and obviously choking on hate.
Look arround. Unless you are on the left – you can like Trump, you can dislike him.
He can be a good president or a bad one.
But he is not the anti-christ.
Yet if you would listen to the media or the left he is the embodiment of all that is evil.
Anything he does is evil. Even when he does exactly the same thing as Obama did – because Trump did it he is evil.
The left has entirely lost it and exposed their own dark and hateful innerselves.
People who claim to be more loving, understanding and caring than the rest of us. Those who think they are the embodiment of love for they fellow man are spewing hatred by the truckload.
It is not at all hard to see someone of these people as the angry white KKK members in 20’s photo’s of lynchings, with Trump supporters as the blacks.
I find it fascinating – Trump is purportedly the jackbooted authoritarian.
What evil is he doing ? Increasing individual liberty and decreasing government oppression.
How twisted are we ?
“n the late 18th century liberalism and progressivism were competing ideologies – the “liberalism” or Locke, Smith, Mill – classical liberalism.”
The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody. 1754
1830’s French Romanticism: capitalism and private property —> decay
I do recall asking how did Basiat come from France ?
“I do recall asking how did Basiat come from France ?”
I am not sure of your question. How did Bastiat get here (from France) can mean more than one thing. He didn’t get here by plane because air transport didn’t exist during his lifetime. Maybe you are talking about his wisdom and knowledge. Those things sort of diffuse outward so one can choose a point in time that they attribute to the discovery of Bastiat. You might want to think in Austrian Economic terms so perhaps you would think of Murray Rothbard but certainly, he was a latecomer to Bastiat and Mises is his elder, but maybe you wish to say he came here through the school of Austrian economics which would lead us to many Austrian Economists including Carl Menger.
Of course, his concept of person, liberty, and property exists in our Declaration of Independence as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I think the question has been adequately answered and reflects those of your persuasion, but if you had something else in mind perhaps you would like to be a bit more clear.
My question was rhetorical.
It was how did a country otherwise so screwed up and collectivist – France is pretty much the root of western collectivist thought, how did that country produce Bastiat ?
Separately, I am familair with Menger, Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, and the Austrians.
I rarely talk about austrians – despite the quality of their work, they are too easily discarded by all but a few as cranks and extremists. I am not sure I accept ABCT – but we have come up with nothing better. Certainly not Keynes nonsense about animal spirits.
Regardless you can argue things that are generally accepted – such as value is subjective, without getting too deep into Austrians.
I am also familair with Friedman, Coase, Baro, Lucas, Acemoglu.
And once in a while even some keynesians or neo keynesians or other permutations get things right.
Paul Romer had an incredible paper a could of years ago that basically demonstrated that any model with sufficient simultaneaous equations and sufficient coeficients, can not only be gamed to produce any result AND still hind cast reality, but that result can occur as a consequence of subconscious biases despite every effort to avoid them
That applies to far more than economics.
“ My question was rhetorical.”
Was that in response to my unnamed quote from 1754? If it was then it was an especially good question. When I quoted it I was sure you knew the author based on your historical comment.
“Was that in response to my unnamed quote from 1754?”
I have lost the thread. So I am not sure.
But I have recognized atleast generally most of your quotes,
You are reading much of the same things I am.
I have not read and really only have cursory familiarity with the talmud or Jewish religious thought – beyond the fact that christians share the old testament, and I have read and at one time studied that.
I probably have more familiarity with Buddhism – or atleast I did sometime ago.
I lost interest in institutional religion – possibly in college while studying religion.
But the fact that I do not subscribe to some particular beleif does not mean I am an atheist.
I am comfortable with the fundimental principles that nearly all religions share,
and grasp that it is how you live your life, not precisely what you beleive that is important.
Regardless, if you do not know your own religion, or your own ideology – and Linda does not really seem to know either very deeply, you do not want to argue those with me. I am not pretending incredible expertise in either, just more than enough competence to eviscerate people who have never bothered to think about their own religion or ideology.
Hypocrisy seriously bothers me. As does arguments from ignorance of your own core values.
OK, we get that JT has a hard one for McCabe, and that’s the only one that he seems to hang his hat on. JT makes every excuse in the books for all the outright BS that Trump and his merry team of incompetents are trying to pull out of thin air. Oh, but that McCabe, he will go to jail, or Ohhh he’s in trouble this time. Has JT read the IG report? Who is he working for? His writings are becoming very clear, with Trump…Nothing to see here….with anybody else…OHHHH look out.
Hey FishWings. How are you doing? Hang in there. This, too, shall pass. The same way the FISA warrant abuse cockamamie was eventually dropped. As for Turley, it could be worse, you know. Turley has not yet called for an end to the special counsel’s investigation. Turley has not yet accused Mueller of misprision of justice simply for conducting an investigation. Turley appears to be focused on impeaching the credibility of potential witnesses against Trump and raising reasonable doubt about Trump’s guilt on any prospective criminal charges that have not yet even been brought against Trump.
Meanwhile, we’re not talking about Mueller’s subpoena of the Trump Organization’s financial records. The last we read from Turley on that count was that Turley thinks that potential charges for financial crimes pose the greatest risk to Trump from the OSC.
Turley has a platform and obligations as an academic. Rhetorically, is he advancing the best interests of the nation or, is he playing a different hand? Parsing is a moral convenience and justification for the legal profession. Lincoln, a lawyer, understood America had the potential to be great if it prevented the moneyed from eating the bread for which others toiled. What does Turley understand?
As mentioned before Lincoln’s quote (in his debate with Douglas) was, “You work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.” Lincoln was clearly fighting against people of Linda’s nature and the leftist agenda of today. The leftists today wish to take the “work and toil” of others so that they can eat it themselves. They wish to enslave all other people under the guise of their elitist abilities to redistribute wealth claiming that the one that worked and toiled had an unfair advantage over the one that didn’t. The actual “fight” is between the rights of kings vs the rights of the common man. Linda favors the rights of kings in her Stalinist view of the world and is anti-freedom.
Full Lincoln quote:
“That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles — right and wrong — throughout the world. They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. ***The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings.*** It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, ‘You work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.’ ***No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.*** “
Nicely done Allan! Context matters; not Linda’s strong suit.
Thanks, Olly.
Of interest, I used to discuss things with 2 very bright libertarians that had a great dislike for Lincoln because of his positions that they felt violated the Constitution. They looked at Lincoln in parts and didn’t look at the entire man, date, time and place.
That’s a good point. We have the luxury of reviewing the totality of people and events throughout history to weigh their impact on civilization. I used to not put much thought into the context of events in history. That’s not how it was taught in public schools. It was always memorizing dates, events and the people involved with very little requirement for critical thinking.
In my opinion, the Declaration of Independence is probably the single most important document created that requires context to understand why we are in such trouble today. Salutary Neglect for instance was instrumental in creating the culture in the colonies that led them to recognize the divine right of kings to be a false doctrine. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
With all the attention on our constitution; the rule of law, none of it will make much sense if we fail to understand and accept the underlying principles that led to it.
“context of events in history. ”
Olly, that is something the left doesn’t understand and doesn’t want to understand. The left takes all actions out of context because they live without principles based upon a false religious faith that their ideology leads to Nirvana.
I agree with you about the Declaration of Independence being one of the greatest documents ever created, but that document relied on a mindset that was unique, something you seem to recognize but all too many others don’t. Two revolutions occurred at that time that had a significant relationship to each other, the French Revolution and the American Revolution. The French revolutionaries act like our leftists do today and that led to death, chaos, and eventually dictatorship. Instead of being gracious those revolutionaries were angry and could only think of revenge and hate like many of the leftists on this blog. The American Revolution had a singular idea that man was born with God-given inalienable rights. It makes no difference how one perceives God. The difference is if a man gave those rights a man could take them away, but if God gave them then no man could take those rights away.
Of course, you understand all these things so I am not telling you anything new.
Thanks for your help on formatting I will try again tomorrow.
If you feel that you were poorly educated because of dates and leaders you might want to read the Discoverers by Daniel Boorstin that deals with concepts instead of those more transient items. I presume you already have read it, but if you didn’t, at least look at the chapters to see how Boorstin handled the telling of history.
The context and “salutory neglect” arguments are interesting.
I would note that To some extent ALL of the west resembles the US – more closely the closer they are connected to us.
AU and NZ have incredibly strong comparables – though not perfect, they are both former english colonies, both beneficiaries of “salutory neglect” and both relative wildernesses ocupied by englishmen far from England.
England itself has a slightly weaker resemblance. Like the US it is a nation of immigrants – though less so, and with a strong though less strong sense of individualism.
Much of our thought, traditions … came from the UK. Particularly from the scottish enlightenment.
Backing onto the content many of the traditions that formed England and then the US follow back through Denmark to Germany.
Our tradition of Religious toleration started there – out of recognition that different sects were not going to succeed in exterminating each other. Much of the impetus of individualism flows to the IK and then the US from Germany.
What developed in Germany started in Italy in the renaissance.
The context of the American revolution and our ideals follows a historic path through atleast to Rome.
It is noteworthy that much of the rest of the world has different roots and arrived at different places.
It is also worth noting that world standards of living correspond to the extent that western individualist ideal is incorporated into their culture.
If you are looking for reading material – follow that tradition. Whether you wish to read Mills or Locke or Smith or move further back into those who influenced them.
I would note that there are subsequent ideological traditions – some influenced by us, that have been less successful – such as that of the french revolution which has much in common with the US revolution but more strongly emphasizes egalitare over libertare and as a consequence becomes the foundation for socialism, marxism, and fascism.
Thank you for the book recommendation.
The one thing I cannot understand is why anyone would argue against natural rights. If you win, you lose any real sense of security of your life, liberty and property. And you know what that means? As long as we are allowed to have elections, they will always have the risks of consequences we won’t have any “legitimate” argument against.
” I cannot understand is why anyone would argue against natural rights.”
The leftist ideology is a faith-based bad dream absent the principles offered by the Bible.
There has to be more than denying the existence of God. Arguing against natural rights makes as much sense as a slave arguing in support of his master.
“There has to be more than denying the existence of God. ”
Olly, I wasn’t trying to promote God rather pointing out how the left, many of whom abhor God, pray to an ideology that doesn’t even have principles such as seen in the Bible.
I have nothing against the bible – but you do not need it to destroy leftism.
The concept of free will is central to the bible, but it does not require the bible or even a god.
I don’t bother to say what the Bible is capable of doing rather I said the Bible (faith-based) contains a set of principles, while leftism (faith-based) seems absent of principles.
It is more fundamental than that.
Even natural rights are inherently based in individual liberty – freedom.
All “natural” rights are essentially the freedom to do as you please respecting the equal right to do as you please of others.
They all reflect Kant’s categorical imperative.
The central issue is freedom or free will. Credible western thought is rooted in a non-deterministic world where free will exists.
I doubt even leftists would like any of the other 4 possibilities.
Morality requires free will. You can not make moral choices, unless you are free to make moral choices.
When a master directs a slave to do good, he accrues no moral benefit. When a slave does good at the direction of a master he accrues no moral benefit.
Morality does not exist without freedom.
You will note – fairness and equality are entirely absent from this discussion.
Free will is a foundational human attribute.
The purported principles of the left – such as fairness and equality, are not principles, they are values, they are subordinate to principles and freedom.
The resolution to the conflicts in the ideology of the left rests in that – real principles can not conflict.
Values can. There is nothing irreconcilable about values conflicts.
Today I can value peace and quite, tomorow I can value a heavy metal concert.
That is a conflict of values, but it is not an inherent contradiction,
because the conflict is with values not principles.
Gerrymandering, the scheme of kings. Impeaching the judges who prevent gerrymandering- the plot of kings.
Labor’s share of national income at the lowest point in U.S. recorded history- the theft of kings. The financial sector dragging down GDP while enriching themselves- eating the bread for which others toil.
Concentrated wealth strangling economic growth- the betrayal of America’s promise and the sacrifices made for it.
“Gerrymandering, the scheme of kings.”
Linda though you are a very simple woman some ideas behind gerrymandering aren’t anywhere near so simple. Quite a while back one of the nominations for a Presidential cabinet position had earlier in her career wrote about cumulative voting so that representation could be provided to minority groups that would always be outvoted by the majority. Gerrymandering can serve the same purpose. I like all to have a vote so I can easily understand these alternate theories, but politicians misuse them so I would prefer less political means to accomplish the same.
The rest of your viewpoints expressed in your reply represent even a more simplistic understanding of the political economy so I won’t respond. Any response seems to go way over your head.
Ranting about “gerrymandering” is lunacy.
At its core it rests on the garbage presumption that there is a “fair” way to determine congressional districts.
It is unarguable that our founders concocted 3 different schemes for electing federal offices.
If there was an inherently “fair” way there would only be one.
These disparate schemes are a deliberate effort to make one part of the federal government “fair” to one group – at the expense of another, and to reflect the fact that there is no universal standard of “fair”.
You can pretty much guarantee that any argument that bandies the word ‘fair’ about has become corrupt and fallacious.
Any parent quickly learns that they can not debate “fair” with their toddlers.
Life is not “fair”.
One reason is that we do not share the same common understanding of fair.
As 10 people to define fair, and you will get 11 answers.
We can define and endeavor to acheive liberty. We can not acheive equality.
The US revolution and its progeny prized liberty, as revolutions went it was peaceful, and the results were prosperity and mostly peace. And the same has been true of every progression of government towards liberty.
The french revolution substituted equality for liberty and was bloody and unsuccessful. Resulting in tyranny, as has every single progression of government towards equality rather than liberty.
Ideologies fixated on “fairness” or “equality” are inherently destructive and bloody.
“If there was an inherently “fair” way”
If I could I would abolish the use of the word “fair” when discussing political economics.
The word has no meaning. Not in economics, not in life.
It ALWAYS represents an effort to manipulate and to substitute emotion for reason.
A disjointed spray of nonsense.
Gerrymandering has nothing to do with kings and has been part of politics forever.
As corrupt as it might be it is inconsequential and extremely dangerous.
You can create safe seats at the expense of party – which is the norm,
or you can attempt to gain small advantage for your party by greatly increasing the risk of being massively swept away by small swings in voting.
Finally there is no actually “fair” way to determine congressional districts.
To the greatest extent possible we want the courts OUT of elections. The courts involvement in the election process is the most corrupting thing we can do to courts.
If SCOTUS is wise it will use the Gerrymandering cases before it to foreclose the courts from getting involved. There is no good that can come of it.
No matter what one might think of the scheme the PA legislature arrived at that of the PA courts is atleast as biased.
But the left is fixated on statistical measures as if we can tweak the world to statistical perfection.
Law is about law – it is about statutues and constitutions and actual rights.
It is not about science or statistics. When those become influences on the courts – the courts have erred.
“Labor’s share of national income at the lowest point in U.S. recorded history”
There is no “national income”, wealth is produced by individuals – more by some than by others.
Further it is a good thing that more wealth is produced with less labor. That quite literally is the definition of rising standard of living. There is no means to raise standard of living without producing more with less labor.
You are economically completely illiterate.
“The financial sector dragging down GDP while enriching themselves”
Again more illogical nonsense. I am no fan of the finacial sector – but absent the machinations of government they are part of the competive free market like everything else.
Like all others they trade value for value and can only profit when their exchanges are win-win.
Frankly the financial sector is closer to actual zero sum than any other portion of the economy.
A security – a mortgage, an MBS, a CDS, a CDO, a Stock, a Bond – these are all paper whose value is that they represent ownership of a share of something else – a Home, a company, ….
One of the most stupid myth’s of the great recession (and great depression) is that it was caused by financial sector machinations. That is again complete economic idiocy and ignorance.
The great recession was caused because through various mechanisms – primarily bad Fed monetary policy, the government created a large credit bubble – in this instance in nearly the worst possible place – home values. Between 2006 and 2008 11T in false value in homes was destroyed as that bubble collapsed. Recession was inevitable. A 16T economy can not absorb an 11T loss in pseudo wealth without a hiccup. What is impressive – is that the financial system held together through 2008 and that it recovered quickly.
Regardless, the financial sector can not cause recessions – they are a leading indicator of government monetary misconduct – not a cause. The financial sector creates very little wealth overall, and has equally little ability to destroy it.
If the value of your pension tanked – it was because the value of the things it was invested in – such as HOMES(directly or indirectly) tanked. Wall street can not create 11T in value from thin air. It can not destory it – only government has that ability.
“Concentrated wealth strangling economic growth- the betrayal of America’s promise and the sacrifices made for it.”
Actual wealth is not concentrated – money is. Wealth is whatever we want and need. The more money one group has the more actual wealth another has.
The Walton’s have gotten fabulously wealthy by providing an incredibly large number of people what they want and need – at lower cost than ever before – meaning that they can have more of what they want and need than ever before. On average Walmart make 1.25% actual profit on each sale. That is a pittance.
In 1700 we spent 70% of our “income” feeding ourselves. By 1900 it was 50%, today it is about 4%.
We eat better and more than ever before – the poor in the US suffer from obesity – that has never ever been a problem of the poor in human history, but today the US is merely the leader in that problem.
Throughout the world food is more abundant better and cheaper than ever before.
Energy, Clothing, in fact pretty much every single thing that humans want and need – whether in the US or elsewhere in the world is more abundant and possesed in far greater quantities by the most poor than ever before.
Further the US poor are the 1% of the world. How is it that you are moaning over the “poverty” of people who are rich as crap compared to nearly all the rest of the world.
China has raised its standard of living from 300$/year to 11,000/year since Mao’s death.
Moving from the bottom of the third world to the bottom of the first world.
Yet 1.6B people are still at median poorer than the poor in the US.
This is what you are moaning about ?
JS,
Since, like Allan, you choose to reject Thomas Picketty’s documentation, in favor of Koch mantra, go back to implementing the Weyrich training manual that teaches falsehoods are necessary.
Keep aggregating dollars to fund support for the preferred colonialism of Marc Andreeson, the Thiel prescription against women voting and, for Reed Hastings’ elimination of local democracy. The current, con man in the WH, is just the beginning of the destabilization that is coming.
Join the Waltons, Bill Gates and Z-berg in privatizing and corporatizing America’s most important common good, destroying the national cohesion and productivity it created. (70% of the enrolled on-line students at for-profit schools in Ohio received no education. The scheme fleeced Ohio taxpayers of $1 bil.). After communities are fractured along racial and religious lines, after students isolate themselves in homeschooling with their schools-in-a-box, and after community tax dollars for education are shifted wholesale to the enclaves of the richest 0.1%, anticipate what will happen.
Go ahead and free the donor class to use their organizations and politicians to crowd out free markets with monopolies and oligopolies.
Go ahead and advocate for political bullies like State Budget Solutions, State Policy Network, and Gates’ $1 bil. networks which create greater income inequality.
You and I will have front row seats to watch the feudalism of the richest 0.1% begin to play out. We will watch scarce resources destroyed again and again by increasingly volatile weather patterns which could have been averted if not for the greed in oligarch DNA.
You go ahead and live and fiddle in the theoretical construct you’ve built that replaced fair pay and a chance at economic opportunity with short-sighted plunder. Avoid the reality portrayed in the dystopian novels that predict the future. Let the next generations live the hunger games. That’s on you and those who defend the indefensible.
“Since, like Allan, you choose to reject Thomas Picketty’s documentation, in favor of Koch mantra”
Linda, I don’t dismiss Picketty in favor of anyone. I dismiss a lot of what he says because I believe him to be wrong and some of his data to be poorly constructed. On more than one occasion in the past, I was willing to discuss Picketty’s findings, but you rejected such discussion most likely based on the fact that you neither read his book nor understood his basic points. You just repeat soundbites uttered by your favorite leftist writers. Most of the time they convince you not through facts rather they rely upon your naivete.
I won’t bother to comment on the rest that you talk about because it is nothing more than jibberish where you repeat soundbites in a disjointed fashion.
Picketty’s is a 4th rate economist who garnered attention from the left by publishing a book that pushed retread marxism.
There have been many excellent critiques. But none should be necescary.
Socialism in all forms has failed directly proportionate to the scale it has been tried.
Further we are talking about an ideology that has resulted in more bloodshed in human history than anything else. Probably than all crime in the entirety of human existance.
Anyone selling socialism in any form is evil or stupid.
Picketty’s work is retread marxism
Aside from the fact that a proper analysis of Picketty’s own statistics support MY claims and refutes his own, his assertions were both ideologically and practically destroyed before he was born.
They are no better today. The left lost the “economic calculation debate” both intellectually – and as demonstrated by history.
I have not read Koch, I am neither religious nor conservative.
I have however read Locke, Smith, Bastiat, Mill, Thoreau, Hume, Kant, as well as myriads of other “classical liberals” – the intellectual and ideological tradition that created this country.
Your argument appears to be a typical leftist fallacy of guilt by association – apparently you think you can destroy my arguments by pretending they have something to do with people I have no relation to.
Harry Reid said that Sen. Barrack Obama was a light skinned african american with no negro dialect.
I will have no problems finding stupid things that people I can glue to you whether you want or not have said in the past. That is a stupid and pointless game.
Do you have any actual argument or is the entirety of your abilities fallacious appeals to authority, straw men, ad hominem and other fallacies.
I have provided you with FACTS, more than ideology, not garbage retread marxist from a 4th rate economist who can not manage to basic statistical analysis.
All the intellectuals of the left seem to have failed statistics.
They constantly harp out that the sky is falling – and yet each day I wake and not only is it still here, but it is a bit brighter every day.
Just to be clear – I did not vote for Trump, and I do not like him.
But he is not the antichrist and the foaming at the mouth leftists who have lost their mind with rage and think that the mere fact that he is still breathing means the end of the world as we know it offend me far more.
We will survive a Trump presidency, and there is a good chance we will be better off at the end of it than we would had Clinton been elected. But that is not certain, and periodicially Trump threatens to F’it up.
Fortunately the engine of the world can tolerate a large amount of government foul up without grinding to a halt – which should tell you how bad a president Obama was, and how stupid pickety was, as we are doing better under Trump than Obama – so far.
Including BTW all the “less fortunate” that you cry crocodile tears over.
Just to be clear – those who claim to advocate for the less fortunate – and do so by imposing policies that we KNOW will F them over even more, are either stupid or evil – take your choice.
But DO NOT climb onto a moral soap box with me or I will destroy it and allow you to fall into the pit of tar that truly reflects the consequences to those you claim to care for of your replusive ideology.
“I will allow you to fall into a pit of tar”. In a different comment thread, JS disparaged the Godlessness of the left.
Turley’s readers can review commenters, assign them a position on the political continuum and, then decide which, in aggregate, characterize the compassion, humility and charity that Christ taught.
We are told that St. Peter’s scale includes the words and person’s actions that impact those whom Christ sought to protect, all of them, not only those who crossed the path of the religious followers. The Lord never denies His grace to anyone whose heart changes to accept his teachings.
Apparently you can not read.
My comment suggested the natural consequences of your own actions
Regardless, you make all kinds of claims with respect to christianity.
I would suggest learning your own faith – because I have.
Christ said render unto Caesar that which is Caesars.
Government has a role and individuals have another.
Charity is the obligation of the individual.
There is no where in either the old or new testament that god expects anything from rulers except justice.
You referenced hudgement – badly – you should actually read the bible if you are going to pretend to apply it. Judgement is done by Christ, and the terms are specified Matthew 25:31-46
When Christ sits in judgement he does not ask
“What did you think?”, he does not ask “what did you say?”, he does not ask “What did you advocate for?”, he asks “what did you do?”
He does not ask “when did you advocate for feeding the hungry”, he does not ask “when did you demand government steal from others to feed the hungry” he asks “when did YOU feed the hungry”.
I have further demonstrated that redistribution via government actually HARMS the very people you seek to help. You can not be christian and support government redistribution.
Compassion is what you DO, not what you feel.
Charity is what you DO, not what you feel.
Your god does not care what you think, he does not care what you feel, he cares what YOU do.
You are called to feed the hungry, cloth the the naked, shelter the homeless, visit those in prison.
You are not asked to open your hearts to them, you are not asked to demand government provide for them.
Your christian obligation is INDIVIDUAL, There is no collective morality, or religion. There are no collective obligations.
You do not even understand your own god.
“Your god does not care what you think, he does not care what you feel, he cares what YOU do.”
This entire statement was excellent for those that wish to preach to us what they have not learned themselves.
I warned Linda not to step onto a moral soap box with me.
I was born catholic – in a 60’s catholic family and raised in a community where most everyone was a near jerry falwell evangelical. I have read every single word in the bible, and debated it with fundimentalist scholars.
I studied philosophy of religion for fun in college,
and I work in a profession where absolute logical precision is required.
Statism in all forms is MORALLY bankrupt. It is not an accident that the french revolution was bloody as hell. It flows naturally from raising the collective above the individual, and you find the same copious bloodshed whenever a collectivist ideology gains power.
We can fight over whether mousolini and hitler were socialists (they clearly were), but there is zero doubt they were collectivists. The state came first.
Anytime that you subordinate the individual to the group the result is blood.
Leftism is IMMORAL. It can be attacked easily because it always corrupts, and always veers towards blood, and it rarely if ever helps those it claims to want to help.
Further you can advocate for whatever collective action you want.
There is absolutely zero moral merit in that.
Morality or immorality comes from individual actions, not thoughts, intentions or words, there is no collective morality.
” I work in a profession where absolute logical precision is required.”
I can recognize that and your Catholic upbringing. If you wish to answer, what is your profession? I have noted anecdotally that some with good knowledge of either the Bible or the Talmud along with economic theory regardless of religion have more discipline in their responses.
“there is no collective morality.”
That is something Linda cannot understand. She is of the Borg mentality.
“If you wish to answer, what is your profession?”
What is was refering to is that I am an “embedded software engineer”.
But any answer is incomplete.
I have very wide interests and skills.
My family had an architectural practice – that employed 55 people at one time.
I grew up part of that. I am a registered architect – buildings.
But we had plenty of architects in the business, so my focus was everything we did not have.
That meant business management, troubleshooting, code issues and that meant computers – we were doing CAD on uC’s – they were not called PC’s then, before there was an Autocad. In addition to the family business (new defunct). I have always had side businesses. I have founded something like 4-5 businesses with others, I have my own consulting business with is my primary source of income.
I am employed W2 by two other businesses – Micron – you might have heard of them. I am working on some stuff that is 2 generations ahead of the moment – basically smart memory. I still employed as an architect on occasion, and I am a landlord.
But most of my focus is on embedded software – linux systems software – drivers, board bringup, working extremely close to hardware.
I also do other embedded consulting – the computers in medical devices, one project involved using long range wireless to track golf carts in a huge car dealership. I did the firmware for a foot mouse for musicians that won some award at an electronics show a year or so ago.
I understand your diverse interests. That makes life more exciting. You have something in common with my wife. My wife’s first degree was as a system (computer) design engineer and was accepted in the second year of the program’s existence. Prior to that, she studied that at the university while she was in high school on a National Science Scholarship. She was hired immediately out of school as an executive and was sought after to do coding for the ABM system. She didn’t like the type of work and went on to do something more important. She had our kids and I felt I could take care of the family alone. Later on, she went for another degree. Logic is essential for your and her type of work.
We have similar feelings, but I think I might be a bit more pragmatic than you when it comes to policy. Though time is infinite man’s lifespan is limited to only a few of those years.
The left fixates on emotions. In your own life you can make choices on any basis that you want.
In Prof. Haidt’s tests of a person’s “moral foundations” I nail his pattern for “libertarians”
low on disgust, low on authority, high value of freedom, high value of rationality.
But I had a debate with him over empathy – there is a substantial difference between a lack of empathy and not making choices based on feelings. I persuaded him that libertarians are not sociopaths.
I am more likely to response to an emotional tear jerker of a movie than my wife.
But I am not going to make choices based on my emotions.
Another factor that has driven me are the people in my life that I have become close to.
While I have attracted a unique collection of dysfunctional oddballs – that still manage to be productive, I came to conclude that there is no such thing as normal, that very few of us put under a microscope are even close to “normal”.
That is important. It means that unless you wish to criminalize most of the people, you can not make rules based on the majority on any issue, because ass you add new rules, you will have a rapidly shrinking group that does not run afoul of them.
Prof. Epstein has argued that a law that is vigorously resisted by as little as 11% of people is unsustainable. Regardless, the very diversity that the left celebrates is a characteristic of humans that requires government to be very limited. It is also one of the reasons that small monoculture social democracies in Europe do not fail as quickly as the same programs in more diverse countries.
The more law and regulation you make – the smaller and smaller the minority is that is truly law abiding.
The smaller the majority that supports and confroms effortlessly to a law or regulation the smaller and smaller the minority that is truly law abiding is.
The left forgets that all laws have a cost – actually many costs.
Enforcing the law is not free, the loss of freedom is not free, and these costs all come at the expense of improving standard of living.
“I persuaded him that libertarians are not sociopaths.”
I took the test immediately before reading the rest of your comment so I didn’t see the above quote at that time. Since there is a difference between how one might perceive one’s rights and how one might actually act, in the test I took the position of perception over action. This is where such a test fails IMO.
When I finished the test I was 100% liberty recognizing that is not how I would act but without your prompting, I said to myself that is how a sociopath would perceive life and act. I noted your comment above and agree with “there is a substantial difference between a lack of empathy and not making choices based on feelings.” People have empathy, the law should not. That is why we have judges and jury nullification except in the Supreme Court which is not deciding the fate of a man rather the fate of the law. (Unfortunately, some justices on the Supreme Court think differently.)
“ But I am not going to make choices based on my emotions.”
The test places one into a box alone, but how we act together is based upon much more than that for the libertarian might be 100% against a law to help another while being the most proactive to help that other person. The leftist ideation can frequently be viewed as the inability to help another unless there is a law or a group action. Of course, both groups act differently than their ideology would prescribe.
I didn’t comment on the rest for I substantially agree. Sometimes laws to prevent certain things from happening can have an opposite effect.
Excellent post.
I might have slightly misstated something elsewhere.
I am not going to make choices about government – the use of force emotionally.
Choices that do not involve government can be made on any basis one wishes.
The connection between lack of empathy (sociopathy) and libertarians has been repeatedly noted. Rand had a fascination with some sociopaths.
But there is a fundimental difference regarding sociopaths that is ignored. They WILL use force – if that is the most effective means to acheive an outcome. That makes those on the LEFT most closely tied to sociopaths.
“But there is a fundimental difference regarding sociopaths that is ignored. They WILL use force – if that is the most effective means to acheive an outcome. That makes those on the LEFT most closely tied to sociopaths.”
Without any question in my mind, I believe many socialists of prominence are sociopaths to a greater or lesser extent.
Politics is an appealing profession for sociopaths.
I am in the process of reading Goldberg’s “liberal fascism”.
One early argument that he makes is that pragmatism is inherently totalitarian.
I have not absorbed the argument yet, so I can not repeat it well. But I found it very interesting.
We are on the internet – pragmatic arguments are rarely interesting – though I still sometimes make them.
Leftism fails – the more fully it is implimented the greater the failure. The evidence on that is damning.
That is the pragmatic argument. Why anyone has any interest in an ideology that in every permutation and every scale has performed badly, usually with significant bloodshed I do not understand. That is pragmatic.
Regardless, in the real world I am easy going – too easy going, and prepared to compromise.
A debate over principles and values should present those in their starkest forms.
“I am in the process of reading Goldberg’s “liberal fascism”.
One early argument that he makes is that pragmatism is inherently totalitarian.”
I read that book over 5 years ago so it is mixed with other thoughts. Pragmatism may be inherently totalitarian, but its existence is inherently necessary for man to succeed.
Leftism fails when it is merely a faith-based religion of dreams rather than a thoughtful progression of ideas amongst those that do not agree with them. That means leftism, as we see it, fails for in its most basic form that we see is the refusal to openly consider any alternative ideas. I have yet to see leftism separate and apart from autocracy or as Linda would call it, oligarchy.
I have also tried to follow some of Orwell’s rules for writing.
State what you mean. Do not temper it – everyone already knows that it is your beleifs, your oppinions, your thoughts, adding words that water down or temper your writing, muddy your expression.
“I have also tried to follow some of Orwell’s rules for writing.State what you mean.”
Having multiple business interests and though I am not a lawyer I write my own contracts and the attornies dot the i’s and cross the t’s. I only care what it means, not its style or anything else. I have had a judge decide in my favor even though he stated that an addition to the contract lacked a certain lawyerly style. Our Congress does not know how to write laws.
We have alot in common.
I would note that the ABA as well as many state/federal laws REQUIRE “plain language”.
In contracts and in legal briefs motions, arguments.
Further Law is one of the few professions that is been ransacked by the internet.
That portion of the law that is really about intellectual skill is small,
that portion that was rote, was large and is dying.
Legalese is dying much the same way that cursive writing is.
It is very important that in contracts and other things legal one writes accurately and with precision.
It is also important elsewhere, but people rarely lose property or freedom over accuracy or imprecession. elsewhere.
The purported reason for “legalese” was the precision the law could apply to legal jargon.
But as the jargon diverges ever farther from common understanding the purpose is defeated.
A law or contract – no matter how precise is worthless if the parties do not understand it and can not conform.
I have done alot of “legal writing”.
One occasion I have spent 5 hours condensing a page or two to one clear paragraph.
That is very very hard. But the results are amazing.
John, I frequently skip worrying about the law and say what I want utilizing metrics of quality (as good as or better than, etc.). That type of phrase has benefitted me more than most of the legal advice I paid for. Legal advice can be great or it can stink so I always stay very much involved and because of the various things I do I have had a lot of contact with the legal profession.
My references to law, were mostly to note changes that are occuring.
Clear unambiguous communication or the type needed for agreements, contracts, … is hard.
Particularly where what is being agreed to is complex and where trust is low.
Regardless, it is of great value whether your are writing for law or something else.
Like everything it is also something that benefits from practice.
I comment a fair amount.
When I do I tend to write quickly and without fixating on grammar or technical skills.
I do that because I do not have difficulty writing well when I can devote substantial time and effort to it.
I have been published half a dozen times.
But the more you write the better you get.
spraying out streams of consciousness slowly improves even ones less well considered writing.
This is also true about thought as well, the more you do the better you get.
“Clear unambiguous communication or the type needed for agreements, contracts, … is hard.”
It is very difficult to have a lawyer that completely understands one’s business as well as the successful owner of the business. The two have to work closely together.
JS
You choose an interpretation about what God expects of you, so that you can justify what you want to do. My interpretation is based on what Christ showed us through example.
In terms of the economy, if the Koch’s oligarchy had had less success, the U.S. would not be suffering from an anemic 2.2% average GDP growth rate over the past 5 years. The U.S. economy would also not be suffering the drag caused by having the most incarcerated population in the world. (Democracy Now-How ALEC and the Koch’s Publicly Back Criminal Justice Reform & Privately Expand Mass Incarcerations)
A quote from Charles Koch (Jan. 28, 2018), “We’ve made more progress in the last 5 years than I have in the previous 50.”
I am not “interpretting” anything. The words are clear.
Christ’s example was in DOING. He did not demand the romans feed to the poor, he did so himself.
The good samaritian did not talk about helping someone. He did not feel about it. He did not beg government to do something, he did not steal from others to do something – he just did it.
You do not even know your own religion – why should I trust you on economics.
Growth for 2016 was 2.5% – and rising, and would have been better but for the first quarter of 1.2% inherited
We have had low growth from Bush through Obama.
It is still too early to call Trump’s higher growth certain, but it is increasingly likely.
Obama had a few good moments – but was not able to sustain more than 2 quarters of 3% or greater growth and averaged 1.8%
If the Koch’s were an Oligarchy are you saying that Obama was in their Thrall ?
Or do you just lob words like Oligarchy without any connection to their actual meaning ?
You seem to think I am a conservative. Get a clue I am not.
I oppose criminalizing (or a priori regulating) any free transaction between consenting adults.
While I do not encourage drug use, prostitution, …. there is no legitimate basis for government to interfere with them.
I am certainly opposed to incarcerating people for engaging in voluntary free exchange – BTW so are the Koch’s.
Just as everything Trump does is not good, everything Obama did was not evil.
Though I think he should have gone farther and he got stupidly sidetracked into “social justice” garbage, his efforts to reduce incarceration are something I agree with.
In fact I am more likely to share the desired ends of the left than of the right.
But all to often the left thinks that good ends justify evil means.
There are very few things that justify the use of force.
Hopes for a greater good are not one of those.
Your bizzare article makes clear your delusional approach to the world.
The intentions you impute to yourself make you inherently good regardless of the consequences of your own actions – the intentions you impute to others – despite the fact that even your own christ judges people on their actions makes it clear that your standard of good and evil, right and wrong is nothing more than whatever your own emotional response is.
While longer sentences for violent offenders, or for multiple offenders are not significant priorities for me.
Unlike you I am capable of BOTH seeking to punish the actually violent, at the same time as I wish to protect those whose crime is to engaged in a disfavored form of commerce.
You also love this 6 degrees of separation guilt.
The Koch’s fund alec, alec works with CCA, CCA might have done something I do not like
QED the Koch’s are evil.
Please take a course in logic.
Using your approach I can trivilly prove everyone in the world loves mass murderers.
The “reforms” that the left is opposing, are efforts to make federal law comport with hundreds of years of western tradition in criminal law.
In the west – as opposed to the USSR or PRC or NK, one of the elements of nearly ever crime is “intent”.
That does not mean that one must specifically intend to commit the charged crime.
It means that to convict someone of all but a very few crimes that do not require intent, some intention do do something bad must be proven.
This is an area that you should actually be familiar with as it was raised by Comey (badly) in exculpating Clinton.
18 cfr 793(f) the crime that was alleged and proved regarding Clinton – does not require intent – but it does require recklessness.
Comey improperly stated the law – section f does nto require intent, section e does.
Worse he mistated the law on intent.
Clinton’s emails demonstrate that she used he provide email server to avoid complying with FOIA requests – that was illegal, though possibly not a crime. But more importantly it was evidence of bad intent, and sufficient to justify prosecuting her under 18 cfr 793 (e).
In the instance of 18 cfr 793 the law clearly specifices sections that require specific intent, general intent, and merely recklessness.
But in much federal law there is no mention of intent. For hundreds of years the courts have always included intent as a requirement for a crime EXCEPT crimes that specifically preclude intent – such as statutory rape, or crimes that are explicitly about negligence – such as criminally negligent homocide.
But in the modern era the left has flipped the courts on this issue and tens of thousands of federal laws are not wrongly understood to not require either intent or even negligence.
The Koch’s and many many civil libertarians have been trying to get congress to fix this, but reimposing by law the requirement that any federal crime must include intent – except where the law specifically notes that intent is not required.
While this would effect 10’s of thousands of laws, it would merely put them back to where they were half a century ago.
I for one beleive that very very few crimes should not require intent. I would hope that you are not so totalitarian as to disagree. Or are you really a proponent of “sentence first – verdict after” ?
Further – if you are going to cite something – actually cite it,
If you are going to quote something – quote it in enough context that one can know what it means.
Your Koch quote could be about cancer – which the Koch’s are heavily involved with.
Finally, I am not here to defend (or attack) Trump, the Koch’s or whatever your favorite object of hate is.
I am interested in facts, logic reason – regardless of whose ox gets gored.
I may choose to defend Trump or the Koch’s or whoever you attack – when you are wrong, to make a point about facts, or about your own stupid errors. Regardless that is my choice. I am not wedded to anyone else’s views but my own.
Guilt by association is another common left wing nut fallacy.
But so far you have demonstrated no ability to make a valid argument – i.e. on that conforms to the rules of logic, much less a correct argument – one that actually proves your point.
Princeton Prof. Martin Gilens documented the U.S. as an oligarchy but, don’t bother looking it up and don’t concern yourself with the truth about the fleecing of Ohio taxpayers by the for-profit virtual schools (BTW- Ohio as the 7th largest state in the nation might, act as a bellwether). Resistance to inconvenient information and certainty that you are always right, would no doubt prevent any change of opinion. I’m sure it’s not the first time you’ve heard the comment.
Evidentiary evidence is lacking along with factual inaccuracies. I live in Ohio. WHAT fleecing by virtual schools? Oh and by the way 11th largest state in the Union.
Gyorgi Schwartz’s (‘George Soros’) $ don’t buy good help anymore I can see.
Please take your drivel, lies and untruths elsewhere. Or come back with actual evidence not FEELZ ….
If people are buying and continue to buy some good or service then it is by definition of sufficient value to them.
Linda is clueless about value.
She does not grasp the difference between reality and measures of reality.
The street in front of my house exists, it is real, it has fixed physical characteristics.
If I measure its width with a rubber tape measure, or do so at an angle, or ….
the road still has the same physcial attributes – regardless of the measurements.
The quality of a measure is its conformance to reality.
If someone claims people are getting fleeced – and yet they continue to do so.
That ALWAYS means the person making the claim has reached their conclusion based on a false measure of value.
Math, science, statistics are all wonderful tools, but if you do not check your results against reality, they are useless.
The performance of these Ohio Schools Linda refers to is a fact, as is that people thus far continue to buy that education. The value of that education is what those people are willing to pay, and what the schools will accept. If some statistical measure claims otherwise – that measure is by definition in error.
John I think you miss my point. Linda is just a lying shill for the left. When confronted to produce evidence she cannot/does not. Kind of like Adam Schiff and all the Trotskyist cultural Marxists pretending to be ‘democrats’ ….
Matt, Linda’s ideology has little use for the truth or facts. That is why she appears as she does. She is a follower that has been trained not to think.
I know I have insulted her too. It is difficult to resist.
But those of us who are not falling off the left edge of the political spectrum should grasp that the left lost the last election – badly, because their campaign and too much of their ideology is about labeling others as stupid and hateful and then spewing hate at them.
Hillary’s deplorables comment was damning – not because of the words – but because she and most on the left believe them.
We can get away with straw man (or real) ad hominem directed at the extreme left.
But ultimately progress depends on persuasion not alienation, and that is what the left should have learned from 2016.
We should not repeat the mistakes of the left. Which has not only not learned, but it literally arguing that the election tipped because stupid voters were fooled by deceitful russians.
The Russian collusion arguement has gotten slightly more traction than I had expected, but if can only survive so long as voters do not grasp that the left is saying THEY were deceived by Russians.
It must be someone other stupid fool.
“I know I have insulted her [Linda] too. It is difficult to resist.”
Don’t worry about a trivial insult for if she had the power we would both be at the bottom of a ditch with bullets in our heads.
I am not worried,
That observation is more about effectiveness.
You do not make progress with people by insulting them – no matter how much they deserve it.
Even insulting their ideas tends to throw up a wall that you can not get past,
but tag someone personally and you lose them.
That is precisely what the left did wrong in 2016 – they expanded the scope of people they labeled as hateful hating haters to exceed half the electorate – and that was the end of the election.
But creative insults are fun.
I am neither worried nor appologizing, just noting that if the goal is to persuade insults do not work.
It is quite hard to expose the stupidity of left thought without insulting people or their beliefs.
It is hard because the beleifs are stupid, and because believing them is stupid.
” if the goal is to persuade insults do not work.”
Persuade Linda? Likely impossible.
I have things I wish to say. Linda’s posts provide an opportunity to respond on some matter I wish to speak.
My personal criticisms of her are probably unnecessary flourish, self-evident and rhetorical,
but they are part of the fun. Besides turn about is fair play and Linda has no problem with ad-hominem
“I have things I wish to say. Linda’s posts provide an opportunity to respond …”
As you well recognize appealing to Linda’s intellect is like getting something stuck to the bottom of your shoe. However, you never know the lost souls that might have heard your voice.
It would be nice if Linda somehow was provoked to serious thought.
It is more likely that someone else might.
But even if I am writing into the abyss there is value.
Resistance to inconvenient information and certainty that you are always right, would no doubt prevent any change of opinion. I’m sure it’s not the first time you’ve heard the comment.
LOL! That’s awesome Linda. It’s entirely appropriate that you posted that comment as a reply to yourself.
Well done! Bwahahahaha!!!
Oligarchy is “government by a few people”.
In the most literal sense that is true of ALL governmets.
But if you are claiming the common understanding of oligarchy – govenrment by business and/or the wealthy – then you and your professor are self evidently wrong.
In the US business and the wealthy RENT power, they do not own it.
Are students attending these purportedly failing schools compelled to do so by force ?
If not your entire argument is fallacious.
Value is subjective. It is determined in the free market and ONLY in the free market.
You are entitled to your ideas of value, and I mine, as is anyone consuming or producing some value.
The value of something is what the person who wants it is willing to spend and the person who has it is willing to accept.
Value is not (and can not) be set by statistics or objective criteria. At their best – these things accurately reflect the value that people place on something. To the extent that they deviate, it is those measures that are wrong, by definition.
The entire concept of public schools – or the government delivering any good or service that does not require the use of force, is absurdly stupid. When government provides anything that can be provided without force, the market is distorted and less efficient. Market inefficiency means a lower standard of living.
Linda: “Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated”
Yes, I have a high degree of confidence in my remarks.
That confidence comes from 60 years experience, and an understanding of history.
I am not “right” because I am brilliant. But because I have observed studied and learned how things actually work and how they actually fail. You clearly have not.
Further I continue to learn all the time. You clearly do not.
John writes to Linda: “Further I continue to learn all the time. You clearly do not.”
Linda is like a burnt out bulb. You can turn the power on and off and Linda will not change. The only solution is to discard her into the trash bin and replace her with something that works.
I have been frequently told by people that I am wrong about some thing or an other.
Regardless, the world will go on, and we will see the actual outcomes.
You do not even seem to understand that the debate is not about which of us – you or I has more merit as a person. But about how the world actually works. We seek to better understand how the world and humans actually work – because forcing our ideas on others blind to the consequences is literally evil.
If you look at the vast majority – possibly all of our disagreements, your position always leads to imposing your will on everyone – those who agree AND those who do not, by force.
If you are wrong, you are doing harm and you are evil.
Wherever possible my position is to allow people to make choices on their own. I use force incredibly rarely and only where it is near universally accepted as justified.
Those who disagree with me are free to do things their way – but they are not free to force everyone else to do things their way. If the results are bad – the consequences are born by those who made the choices, not by everyone.
So Zuckerberg is evil now ? Good to know! He was your hero, when capitolizing on social media lead to a progressive victory. How quickly you turn on your own.
Regardless, corporatism is a characteristic of the LEFT – not classical liberalism.
I expect Gate and Thiel and the Koch’s and whoever else you wish to try to hang arround my neck to
profit in exactly the way that Adam Smith did – by trading value for value, and delivering more value as judged by ME and everyone else than the next guy. I expect them to compete – constantly for me.
And I expect them to periodically fail, because someone else does better.
The 0.001 even the 1% are not places people stay long.
Several members of the current forbes 400 hundred were littlerally homeless in their lives.
Most of the current fortune 500 companies did not exist when I was born. Of the top 10, only one has been there more than a few decades.
Profiting at the teat of government is an attribute of the LEFT.
How much did clinton get from Goldman Sach’s ? From Russian Oligarch’s ? From african Despots ?
Do you really want to have this fight ? I offer no one – rich or poor anything beyond the freedom to compete for my choices. No subsidies, no special treatment. Actual equality rights nothing more.
It is your ideology that delusionally thinks against centuries of evidence that it is capable of picking winners and losers, and that people will work harder when they have less incentives.
“Capitalizing on (Facebook)”- Cambridge Analytica is financed by the Mercers (GOP funders), and, was run by Bannon. Republican Rep. Nunes shut down the House investigation before Cambridge’s involvement could be exposed.
Z-berg, like Gates are aligned with the “Center for American Progress”, which is funded by corporations i.e. Walmart. One example of a CAP agenda is support for TFA which undermines labor’s pay and denies input to working conditions for students, via their teachers. Creation of a concubine party for the rich is what predatory businessmen would be expected to do and did when they took over a wing of the Democratic Party. The hedge funds of DFER provide example.
We all know that you determine good and evil solely by where money comes from.
CA engaged in datamining on facebook.
They paid to do so. Just like the Obama campaign did in 2012.
Absent proof of the use of force, or a breach fo a contract you had with Facebook,
your remedies are limited to going elsewhere or demanding facebook change its policies.
Put more simply whether you are upset by CA or not, there is no crime, and therefore nothing to investigate.
Facebook is entitled to have policies that allow them only to permit political datamining by democrats,.
But most of us would rightly find that offensive.
I would further ask – what is it that you think the Mercer’s and CA accomplished through Facebook ?
CA and the Mercer’s had ZERO interest in YOU. They were seeking to find people who could be persuaded to vote for Trump – not ones who would not.
You can be just about absolutely certain they had no interest in your data.
Finally, you still seem to beleive that you can selectively criminalize persuasion.
That is just idiocy.
My God ? Really ?
CAP is a PROGRESSIVE think tank and advocacy group.
You are pissing over the people who produce the bogus economic data you like to cite.
The price of anything is what a willing buyer and a willing sellor agree upon.
That is a fundimental LAW of economics. It is immutable.
Efforts to manipulate that – whether privately or through government distort the economy create inefficiency and reduce standard of living – that is inherently Coases law.
Are you alleging that actual force is being used against teachers in negotiating their wages ?
Or against schools ?
This is part of the reason we need to end public schools.
Education is a commodity like all others. its cost will not drop, and its quality will not rise so long as government is entrenched.
If you do not like the democratic party, you are free to start your own.
To my knowledge the democratic party is a voluntary association. No one is obligated to join or remain.
No force is used.
Psychographic research was first used to sell the Ford Edsel. The Obama campaign applied the technique to internet messaging- hardly the giant step it was touted to be at the time. The allegation is that Cambridge worked with a foreign nation, that deceit was used to get information, that Cambridge managers, who were foreign guest workers, made decisions about the campaign’s administration, which if true, violates election law, etc. The whistleblower detailed the issues that concerned him.
But again, information that does not conform to your existing mindset, only reaches the wind.
You make assumptions about a person being a Facebook user, you make up what opinions you think they have and, then you refute the arguments that you, yourself made. You don’t know, nor care about, what you don’t know.
Are able to read and think critically about your own claims ?
First your assertions about the motives of others are irrelevant.
An act is a crime or not regardless of your motives.
It is always trivial to ascribe bad motives to the “other side”.
Even if true. that is irrelevant.
Every claim you make about the motives or others is both outside your ability to know, and irrelevant.
That obliterates much of what you say.
Addressing content. You are making extremely bizarre claims.
CA bought information that Facebook sold – just exactly like the Obama campaign did.
That is not a crime.
As I have noted before, free exchange should never be a crime.
I really do not know who CA’s workers and managers were.
Nor do I care.
John Oliver is english, yet he pontificates on US politics all the time, and he is very influential.
But he is not a criminal.
Regardless, it is very bizarre that the left which accuses Trump of hating minorities, nationalism, and xenophobia is fixated on exactly those elements with respect to Trump.
Paul Manafort worked in Ukrainian campaigns. Hillary worked with the Ukrainians on 2016.
Tony Podesta worked for Paul Manafort lobbying congress for the Ukraines.
Adding a foreign national into the middle of voluntary free exchange does not convert it to a crime.
Your entire xenophobic rant is garbage.
Further you are unable to distinguish between conduct that you do not like and conduct that is criminal.
The distinction is actually pretty simple and stems from the foundations of government – the social contract.
We cede our right to initiate force against others, in return for government protection from infringement on our other rights by others using force.
Crimes (and all legitimate government) involves force.
Beat someone with a pipe – that is assault.
Tongue lash them – that might be immoral, but it is not a crime.
I do not like many of the actions of BOTH campaigns. I think those actions were immoral, wrong, and I voted accordingly. But they were not crimes.
It was not a crime for Clinton to buy the fabrication of the Steele Dossier, and it was not even one to sell it to the DOJ/FBI – thought it was a crime for DOJ/FBI to buy it and to rely on it for an investigation without verification that a crime had actually occured.
Immoral acts that are not crimes are punished OUTSIDE of government – by each of us, by our choices and words. But not by force.
While I beleive that your reporting of the facts is in error.
It is also irrelevant. Because you can not distinguish between things you do not like,
and actual crimes.
No force was involved in any of this.
No guns were held to voters heads.
You are wrong about the law – once again using ocean wide breadth.
I would suggest that every time you say “see foreigner, crime”, you think about whether John Oliver could be successfully prosecuted using your defnition of “crime”.
If so – then you are certainly overly broad. None of us think John Oliver is a criminal.
“But again, information that does not conform to your existing mindset, only reaches the wind.
You make assumptions about a person being a Facebook user, you make up what opinions you think they have and, then you refute the arguments that you, yourself made. You don’t know, nor care about, what you don’t know.”
Your remarks describe your errors not mine.
I have made no assumptions. Mostly I have accepted your claims as you made them – even though I know they are in error.
I make no assumptions about Facebook users – beyond that they are on facebook voluntarily and that they have therefore agree to facebooks terms and conditions and if they do not like them – they are free to leave.
About the only assumption I can recall making is that CA did NOT target left wing nuts or their information.
I assumed that CA would not put effort into persuading left wing nuts to vote for Trump.
I doubt I am wrong, but it would not change anything if I was.
I do not know or care about what is irrelevant.
My (or your) guesses as to the intentions of others,
my (or your) telepathic ability to know what is in other peoples minds is irrelevant and not evidence of anything.
Just to clarify some more facts – labors share of income has declined because the rate of labor productivity increases has declined. Capitals share on income has increased because capital’s share of productivity increases has risen.
This should not surprise anyone.
A burger flipper in 1980 is little more productive than a burger flipper today.
Standard of living rises BY DEFINITION when more is produced with less human effort.
There is absolutely no reason that a burger flipper today should have a greater real income than one from 1980 – and yet they do.
In 1980 a top end refridgerator cost 1200 – I know I bought one. The MW was 3.10 so it took 387 hours working at McD’s flipping burgers to buy a top end fridge. Today an far better fridge can be purchased for less than 1000, that will cost less than 1/4 what that 1980 fridge did to operate. And the same burger flipper today can by that Fridge after working 138 hours.
Pick almost anything and you will get similar results.
The very very few things that you can not buy today for 1/3 to 1/2 the MW labor you could in 1980 are things that have been highly regulated by government.
Put simply the lions share of productivity improvements since 1980 have been do to capital, but the lions share of the benefit went to labor.
That is far from the only refutation of Pocketty’s but that will do for a start.
I have no idea about the “for profit” schools in ohio – source please – as I highly doubt your claim.
as I noted before I think failing statistics is a requirement for being a progressive.
Certaintly the absymal quality of left statistics sugests that.
That said PUBLIC education – that basition of leftism, has increased in cost by a factor of 4 since 1970,
Adjusted for inflation the cost increase has over doubled.
And yet the quality of education has substantially declined.
In an actual free market over a long term ALL prices decline relative to wages.
The only prices that actually increase relative to wages are those NOT part of the free market – like public education.
Need I repeat AGAIN increasing standard of living BY DEFINITION means producing more wealth with less human effort.
You will note that to the greatest extent possible in my analysis I eliminate money.
If you had math in high school you should have learned how to factor out whatever inits you want to.
Money is controlled by government and inflation adjustments are crude and relatively bogus.
But we can price anything in the labor necescary to purchase it and compare that to the labor needed at a different time.
I would further note – another common leftist error.
There is almost no one who was flipping burgers in 1980 that is still doing so today.
The average person in the bottom quintile in the US rises two quintiles over their lifetime.
90% of young adults just going out on their own – start in the bottom quintile or low in the 4th quintile.
Almost none of them are still there 30 years later (or even 10).
Put more simply – as this bears on Picketty’s and the entire “income inequality” garbage.
The bottom quintile 30 years ago and today are completely different people.
Aside from the fact that the poor today are much better off than the poor 30 years ago.
The poor 30 years ago, are mostly NOT poor today.
Again horrible leftist statistics.
Do you actually know a real person who was home schooled, cyberchartered, or private schooled ?
My children were cyber chartered. Because my daughter is adopted from China, and though very smart has learning disabilities. She benefited from 5 years of excellent public school teachers starting in pre-school, for which I am eternally grateful, but in 5th grade she get the team of teachers from hell, she went from the top 10% of her class to the bottom 1/3 in a month. We had to do something and the school was zero help. We picked a cyber charter out of desparation. It could not possibly be worse – and if it was she would lose a year and we would try something else.
It proved incredible. Further it was far MORE diverse than her public school, most cyber chartered students are inner city minority kids from shitty public schools, their parent is usually a single mother without a high school degree who is determined that her kids are going to do better than she did.
These students perform poorly in cyber charters – but MUCH better than they did in public schools.
Anyway, my daughter graduated from HS several years ago – with a 3.92 GPA, and a much better and broader education than she could have gotten in her public school.
That said, having gone through the cyber charter thing – if I could have afforded to “home school” my child, I would have done so.
As to cost ? Cyber charters cost about 75% of what brick and mortar public schools do – and most provide a demonstrably better education – while they tend to average slightly below state wide averages, as I noted the majority of their students come from the worst schools in the state.
My local public school got 25% of the dollars for educating my kids – for NOTHING. They provided no services at all. Normally we call that theft.
Interestingly the Cyber charter we started with was investigated for fraud and restructured by the state.
There was alot of money that disappeared.
But you know something ? I do not care and neither should you. Why do you care if those who provide your child a better education for LESS money than the public schools manage to profit greedlily while doing so ? The objective is to spend less money and get a better education. Not to prevent people from profiting. Another one of those things the left is unable to grasp.
In your world a public school that provides a crappy education that costs far more money is laudible,
in comparison to a school that costs less and delivers more – if someone also profits.
You have this stupid idea that profit is a dirty word.
You do not understand that it is the force that drives improvement.
But then again you are selling Picketty’s – really ?
Did you take statistics ?
Do you know what an R value is ?
“after community tax dollars for education are shifted wholesale to the enclaves of the richest 0.1%,”
Bzzt, Wrong.
In much of this country LOCAL(community) TAXES pay for LOCAL(community) schools.
The STATE subsidizes POOR local schools.
For the math impaired that means “community tax dollars for education are shifted wholesale away from most of us and to the bottom quintile” with no results to show for it.
Do you actually think before you mindlessly repeat obvious garbage ?
Johnsay,..
I don’t know how long you’ve been reading the comments threads that have appeared here…but no, she doesn’t.
That part of the remark was really rhetorical.
Linda posts remarks that provide a basis for me to respond addressing an issue I have interest in.
I am not really interested in her, beyond as a foil to use for my own responses.
“After communities are fractured along racial and religious lines, ”
Again – where in the world do you live ?
I live in a community that Jerry Falwell called the “buckle on the bible belt”
I think there are 80 different evangelical denominations in my county.
There are not too many places in the country that are more religiously conservative.
Guess what – the culture wars are over.
My wife’s church – I do not belong to any religion, has more gay than straight people, more minorities than whites, and leans pretty far left.
Nobody is fractured. She left a Unitarian church that was even farther to the left that was entirely white straight people – but they made a big deal about being gay and minority friendly – the gays and minorities did not seem to think so. Meanwhile the menonite – you do know what a menonite is ? Think “amish lite”, church down the street is nearly as diverse as my wifes.
My evangelical “far right” county is famous for taking in large numbers of immigrants – we have a growing burmese and somali community.
Get a clue, most of the country is doing fine. Gay people even belong to evangelical churches “oh my”.
The only part of the country that is dividing on religious or other lines is the vaccuous space inside of the heads of left wingnuts – and possibly some college campuses where left wing nuts are driving people who are actually looking for an education elsewhere.
The “donor class” whoever they are gave nearly twice as much to Hillary as Trump.
Absolutely possitively they seek monopolies, and government protections, and subsidies, and regulations to protect them from competition. Somedays they get some of that from the right, Most of the time they get that from the left, and sometimes they get that from both parties – as in this latest corrupt bloated 1.3T budget.
Just to be clear – I want to take nearly ALL the money from the federal, state and local government and give it back to the PEOPLE.
Lincoln ran the civil war with TOTAL – state federal and local revenues of 5% of GDP.
The less money government spends the less interest your “donor class” will have in trying to siphon some off. Power corrupts.
Disempower government to the greatest extent possible and you will terminate all the corporatism and corruption you are fixated on.
Since you are convinced that humans acting privately are driven by greed and other bad motives, I would suggest reading about public choice economics. That is the study of how those same motives work in the public sector – and lets just say that a greedy business is a tiny problem compared to a greedly politician.
“We will watch scarce resources destroyed again and again by increasingly volatile weather patterns which could have been averted if not for the greed in oligarch DNA.”
Oh, God no! the sky is falling! Help me!.
Identify a SINGLE malthusian prognostication since …. Malthus that has EVER come true.
Once again you are entirely ignorant of ACTUAL facts.
Silent Spring was published in 1962 – I have a copy. I also have a bevy of woodpeckers attacking my house, Owls, and a red tailed hawk – the later two are raptors, the class that was supposed to be exterminated according to Carson
The population bomb was published in 1968. In the 60’s nuns at my elementary school had us all putting nickels into milk cartons for the starving millions in Bangeledesch.
Today the left blows a gasket because 100 bangeledeschi’s are killed in a factory fire.
Factory fires are bad. Millions dying of starvation is worse.
The population of the world has more than doubled, Food production has nearly quadrupled.
Starvation only exists on earth for political reasons today – we have more than enough food to feed everyone.
We are not running out of anything – we can’t – presumably you had HS physics – matter can not be created or destroyed.
I have only addressed a few of the long list of left malthusian fallacies.
Regardless, they are all FALSE. There is actually solid logical and practical reasons why they actually MUST be false – the world does not work that way and could not exist with or without humans if it did.
Regardless, if you would actually like to get a clue – try reading someone who has a brian and researched all of this
https://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Resource-Julian-Lincoln-Simon/dp/0691003815
almost 800 pages of readily available facts debunking nearly every left wing nut fallacy since … Malthus.
You can get a used paperback copy for $12 it could be the best $12 you have ever spent.
You could learn something.
Or you could just read adam smith – that is free.
https://ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_WealthNations_p.pdf
Put simply not only doesn’t the world work as you beleive – but it actually can’t.
My constructs are not theoretical.
In fact the arguments I am making are the only ones that have EVER been actually applied successfully in human history.
Here is another book for you. It is by Nobel Prize winning economist Ronald Coase and one of the 4 greatest economists of the past 100 years
It is a short book, and coase is very easy to read, and very easy to understand.
The book is not merely about how China (1.6B people) went from the bottom of the 3rd world to the bottom of the first from Mao’s death to the present, it is also a primer on the basics of economics with the real world experiences of China as a reference.
https://www.amazon.com/How-China-Became-Capitalist-Coase/dp/1137351438
Or here is a PBS series – “The Commanding Heights – the battle over the global economy”
There are 3 1 1/2 hour segments. This will provide real world evidence to you from all over the planet since WWII about reality and how different economic ideas have actually worked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoWbm8zUG6Y
Or you can try this – just the first reference I found, there are myriads od studies of this.
The strongest predictor of economic growth (rising standard of living) is economic freedom.
Nothing else comes close. Or to paraphrase for left wing nuts “picketty’s is full of shit, and redistribution is the path to poverty”.
https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/lJAsshyCzIcwWgPCAzaJZI/The-positive-correlation-between-economic-freedom-and-growth.html
Have you ever read a dystopian novel ?
Brave New World ?
1984 ?
Animal Farm ?
Anthem ?
Atlas Shrugged ?
Or you could try actual dystopian realities
China under Mao,
The USSR,
Venezuela
Cuba,
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge
Anyway socialism has taken root.
The strongest correlation to standard of living that there is, is that of economic freedom.
For 2 decades starting with Carters major deregulatory efforts, economic freedom in the US rose and standard of living matched that. Starting with Bush II we started encroaching on economic freedom again, and growth dropped by a full percent.
The left idealizes the policies of european social democracies.
Guess what – those policies come with the same weak growth and fragile economies of europe.
Though oddly european social democrats are not actually as completely brain dead stupid as the american left, and generally have stronger bars against moral hazard atleast.
Regardless, the economy stagnated under Bush and Obama for good reason, just as is boomed under Reagan and Clinton.
If Trump does not screw things up with a trade war, he will benefit from a return to atleast 3% growth.
I would note that we were actually headed towards a recession in 2016. We were overdue, and but for the unanticipated election results we near certainly would have had one.
Current growth is not the consequence of Obama’s policies finally starting to work.
It is a consequence of their finally ending.
JS’ style and content – consistent with Fox and/or A.M. talk radio.
Funny! I detect the style guide of the Koch Brithers myself … /sarc
Your Gyorgi Schwartz dollar bills are showing in your purse Linda. Please try harder.
I am classical liberal, The Koch’s are libertarian republicans.
There is alot of overlap.
I have no axe to grind with the Koch’s, but they are not an influence, and any correlation between my views and theirs is coincidence – possibly rooted in the fact that we have each reached similar understanding of the truth from our different paths.
That said – shout out to The Koch’s – I will be happy to take your money to continue to say exactly the same things I am going to anyway.
I do not think they are listening, further they are unfortunately smart enough not to pay for what they will get for free anyway.
Sorry John,
My comment was sarcasm directed at Linda.
Linda writes: “JS’ style and content – consistent with Fox and/or A.M. talk radio.”
Is it possible for one to say anything more stupid?
First we have the fixation on style rather than substance,
Then we have the fact that my style does not resemble that of AM radio or Fox.
It is possible that on occasion there are similarities in SUBSTANCE.
That would be because Fox and AM radio host likely get some things right.
I do not watch Fox, The only “talk radio” I listen to is NPR,
I am not a conservative. Nor does my “style” share anything with Fox or “talk radio”.
Further the argument is fallacious.
While false, it would be irrelevant if true.
I usually say something that is true, remains true even if said by Hitler, but in your case I should say even if it is said by Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity.
Do you have an actual logical argument for anything you assert ?
Or are you just an unending diarrhea of ad homien, guilt by association, appeals to (bad) authority and other fallacies ?
I do not think you can distinguish between a fact and an opinion or logic and fallacy.
Misprision, today’s vocabulary word from Diane. One can see it is a new addition because she does this intermittently and then that same word is used in multiple postings. I think that is great, but she could place a symbol beside it to denote it as her new word. However, that should not take so much time away from her interpretation of the written word. Too many of her responses demonstrate a total lack of care along with a lack of understanding of what she is responding to.
The mishmashes she creates makes her points unintelligent and unintelligible.
Allan, That’s an interesting analysis of Late4Dinner….and I would add that there is some seriously vicious, confused, negative energy surrounding that one. Aside from the partisan hostility, there’s definitely something else not quite right there. It’s painfully obvious and somewhat sad, really.
Absolutely right, TBob.
Can’t figure why JT is not officially on da T rump legal team. Would GWU approve?
What is the CRIMINAL BS that “Trump and his merry team of incompetents are trying to pull out of thin air” ?
One of the fundamental issues here is that we do not criminalize politics. That is an attribute of totalitarian regimes.
My dislike for Trump or his politics does not make Trump a criminal, nor entitle the government to investigate him.
Nixon created the Plumbers because Hoover and the FBI would not do his bidding and investigate political opponents.
McCabe is either at the center or atleast central to the the Obama administrations use of the government to criminalize political opposition.
To me that is much more serious that the mythical collusion that the left still hopes Mueller will find.
McCabe setup Flynn, it is called entrapment and it is a lawless abuse of power.
Amazingly in this instance McCabe even has a personal motive and a self evident vindictive streak.
Protest Trump, elect democrats, fillibuster, shutdown government, these are all legitimate acts of resistance.
Criminally investigating a political adversary without probable cause is not merely not legitimate it is criminal abuse of power.
Criminally investigating a political adversary without probable cause is not merely not legitimate it is criminal abuse of power.
That has been the central point for many of us on this blog for years. I refer often to Bastiat’s The Law as it describes in language my simple mind can understand what we are supposed to demand and the reality of what we have allowed to exist.
Demand, The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
Reality, The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.
The press constantly takes people to task for comparing this to watergate.
But I can not understand why it is so hard to understand that just merely based on what is known as absolute fact this is WORSE. The fundimental difference is that The Obama administration actually did what Nixon wanted to and incorporated the government into its persecution of political enemies.
And if we go beyond what we know to be true and start looking at what is also likely true, this is terrifying.
And far too often people I would normally have held in high esteem are making comments that sound like tin-foil hat conspiracy theorists – except that more and more their claims are born out.
I really do not care much about this Russian influence garbage.
The evidence is that the Russians efforts were miniscule.
But even if that were not true – the “russian influence” all devolves to “persuasion”.
The left seems to think that if you put Russia in front of expression or persuasion, you make it criminal.
Elections are about persuading voters, We have no legitimate power to constrain anyone’s persuasion – not even that of russians, and frankly even asserting that power illegitimately gets us no where – are we really aspiring to become North Korea or some other regime with an walled off internet ?
Thus far with respect to the Trump campaigns conduct I have seen nothing more that they aspired to the same base acts and the Clinton campaign succeeded at.
One of the problems with the whole Mueller investigation is that it can not find the white elephant it is looking for, because it does not exist. I am not claiming it is completely impossible that Trump “conspired” with Russians – though that appears highly unlikely. I am saying that there is nothing Mueller can possibly find that will look worse than what Clinton actually did. The left is looking for a smoking gun that even if found will prove Trump is just like Hillary.
Ahh, Bastiat! He unfortunately did not live that long. Regardless, some excellent work.
How did the country that produced Robespierre and Napoleon produce Bastiat ?
One of the most derided Congressmen (who happened to be part of the minority) always carried a copy of Bastiat’s work, The Law, in the inside pocket of his jacket. I saw him pull it out more than once and one time at my request.
When that same congressman was asked to recommend one book everyone should read, it was The Law.
😀😀😀
John Say – it also produced two Dumas and the Marquis de Sade. 😉
“Nixon created the Plumbers because Hoover and the FBI would not do his bidding and investigate political opponents. … Criminally investigating a political adversary without probable cause is not merely not legitimate it is criminal abuse of power.”
William Felt’s knowledge always made me wonder how he obtained so much of that information. Was the FBI illegally investigating the President? When the agency was renamed The FBI, J. Edgar Hoover was already the director and we all know the power Hoover had based on secrets he collected and used at his discretion so I don’t think what is happening now is new to the culture of the FBI bureaucracy.
I get very annoyed by the left’s rants that Trump is besmirching the good name of the FBI.
Absolutely there are and probably always have been good people at the FBI.
And there have been bad ones.
To the extent the current corruption in the FBI is unusual it is merely that it favors Clinton and to a small extent the left.
Though ultimately the FBI is an intrument of state power. The animosity directed at Trump by NSA/CIA/FBI/…. is because he is an outsider who really seemed serious about “draining the swamp”
The top layer so the Obama administration – including many still present may have been left of center, but large portions of the “deep state” are fixated on self preservation – political ideology come second.
Regardless, have we forgotten the recent mess with the Bundies – however you feel about them – the Government – BLM/DOJ/FBI was found to have falsified evidence.
Wacco ? Ruby Ridge ? The Antrax Letters ? the FBI Labs Scandal ? …….
What reason is it that we have for beleiving that FBI is pure and incorruptable ?
Why is the left defending an organization that was their mortal enemy for decades ?
I am not saying we should inherently presume that everything government related is corrupt to its core.
But the concept that those in government law enforcement can lie, cheat, steal, falsify evidence and prosecute maliciously is incredibly well established.
Any presumption of authority or legitimacy or integrity or incorruptability is at best weak.
I am not saying we should inherently presume that everything government related is corrupt to its core.
But the concept that those in government law enforcement can lie, cheat, steal, falsify evidence and prosecute maliciously is incredibly well established.
It’s also incredibly well-established that there’s a criminal population in this country who belong in prison, and a collection of nuisance intelligentsia with an affection for rough trade.
Power Corrupts.
Government is the ulimate power.
Government corruption in tin pot 3rd world dictatorships may be more overt than in large advanced constitutional democracies, but it is still present.
It is well established that if you give people power over others – they will abuse that power – regardless of guilt or innocence. Stanford prison experiment, milgram experiment, ….
Public Choice is the study of how the attributes of human nature that the left thinks corrupt free markets function inside of government. As Madison noted – “If Men were angels …. ” but we are not.
We require government, and we must work out how to govern ourselves using the very same people that are why we need government in the first place.
It is not about whether those in government can do something evil.
It is a given that they will – not all all of the time, but certainly some, and some of the time.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Who watches the watchers ?
I have no inherent problem with academics. If that is your thing – fine.
I have serious problems with the worship of academics.
Those who can do, those who can’t teach.
Regardless, there is no basis to presume that academics are inherently right or unbiased about anything.
Talib fixates on “skin in the game”, you can not make meaningful choices or analysis unless there is a cost to you for being wrong. Academia insulates people from the costs of their ideas.
That does not make academia without value, but it does mean it should be taken as a source for ideas, not an authority on truth.
Allan has challenged my pragmatism – free markets, the economy, life outside of government is a engine,
ideas are fed in tested vigorously and measured by results.
That is where we evaluate all ideas EXCEPT those involving the use of force against others.
That is where govenrment fits in, and that is where we must tread far more carefully, as there is far more danger.
John,
Would you say your pragmatism is a blended form of realism and idealism?
Reading golberg’s “liberal fascism” I am increasingly reluctant to call myself a pragmatist.
His indictment of pragmatism is pretty damning.
Otherwise I would agree with your assessment.
William Felt’s knowledge always made me wonder how he obtained so much of that information.
He didn’t. Deep Throat was a composite. A critical evaluation of WoodStein’s account of their dealings with Deep Throat was circulating on the internet just before they published Felt’s name, demonstrating the mechanics of the supposed meetings with Deep Throat were unworkable. The senile Felt did them a favor and copped to being Deep Throat even though he was just one of a number of sources they were working. Other critics have pointed out that the actual work of sussing out the various Nixon scandals was done by employees of the U.S. Attorney, the Criminal Division, and committees of Congress. WoodStein were just making public confidential information already known to authorities.
“Deep Throat was a composite.”
Assume he was. My question still stands, “Was the FBI illegally investigating the President?” That question and my comments about Hoover were made to show that we shouldn’t hold the bureaucracy of the FBI in such high standing since over my entire lifetime they have been engaged in at least some questionable practices.
Allan and Nutchacha,…
Mark Felt was the #2 man at the FBI, and pissed off when Nixon didn’t make him FBI Director after Hoover died.
In his position at the FBI, he was in a position to have ( and leak) a lot of information about the Watergate investigation.
I think Wood ward and Bernstein both confirmed that Felt was, as their primary anonymous source, the “Deep Throat” source whose identity they’d concealed until Felt himself ( in his 90s?) came forward.
What Felt did in acting as a “leaking conduit” to W&Bernstein was probably illegal as hell, and likely motivated by his lingering resentment at being passed over by Nixon.
I don’t know what the statute of limitations would be for Felt’s unauthorized leaks, but he was probably well beyond prosecution we he came forward.
Ironically, Nixon testified in Felt’s defense when Felt was convicted ( about 7-8 years after Watergate) of authorizing illegal search and seizure raids.
” when he came forward”
They were lying.
Woodward also claimed to have had 12 hours worth of interviews with William J. Casey when the man was in the hospital dying of cancer. The media extended to Woodward a professional courtesy of pretending they believed this whopper. This is a VIP of the first rank in the hospital and the security staff, the nursing staff, and Casey’s wife and daughter somehow never get wind of Woodward’s presence. Sophia Casey went on national television and said Woodward was lying his ass off, but it had no effect on his reputation. The media are frauds.
The sequence of events which culminated in Richard Nixon’s resignation was well underway by the summer of 1971. Hoover died in May 1972.
Nutchacha,….Who do you think was leaking information that the Washington Post was publishing as Watergate unfloded?
Also, by “sequence of events” in 1971, are you referring to the formation of the plumbers unit, or something else?
“unfolded”
My wager would be that WoodStein had a range of sources, as well as making inspired guesses. Top candidate would be Seymour Glanzer.
Nutchacha is insufferable, is there any chance that you know the lyrics to the tune “Judicial Ukase Cohorts and Their Anodyne Feelz”??? If so, then please inform Johnny Unitas All (nee Roscoe P. Coltrane). Otherwise, please disregard my insinuation.
LOL! Let’s see now, what are the odds that Jonathan Turley knows less about this entire investigation than anyone else on this blog?
I’m certainly not a lawyer (thank God) but it seems to me it can all be explained quite easily without any legal terminology or getting at all into the technical details:
“One law for me, another law for thee…you peasant!”
His own organization, the FBI, says without equivocation, that McCabe lied to them under oath, and he is blubbering like a jilted high schooler, a girl jilted high schooler, not a boy high schooler. For that alone we can all be grateful that this crybaby got fired. He has a lot worse things to worry about. He is likely going to prison.
Speaking of the agon between Trump and the leadership of the intelligence community (Brennan, Clapper, Mueller, Comey McCabe, et al), this two-part interview of NSA whistleblower William Binney by Jimmy Dore is a crash course in the machinations of the Deep State. Among other critically important observations, Binney explains how he became convinced that the DNC emails were leaked, rather than hacked:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGYSuULFzt0