Wrong By Two Noses: Will The Washington Post Now Perform Journalistic Rhinoplasty on Sarah Huckabee Sanders?

Two years ago, I wrote a column in the Hill concerning a “fact checker” column by the Washington Post.  At the time, I was surprised by the column by Glenn Kessler in criticizing White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders over her references to James Comey and his actions following his termination.  I had written a column about the lack of objectivity in the media just before the article. As if on cue, the Washington Post assigned Sanders two “Pinocchios” for saying that Comey’s actions “were improper and likely could have been illegal.” I used the article as an example of the bias in reporting on these controversies. Those comments have now been reaffirmed by the Inspector General in its recent report. Will the Post now issue its own correction with the removal of two noses? More is at issue than political cosmetics in correcting the record on Comey’s conduct.

In her Sept. 12 press briefing, Sanders said, “I think there is no secret Comey, by his own self-admission, leaked privileged government information. Weeks before President Trump fired him, Comey testified that an FBI agent engaged in the same practice. They face serious repercussions. I think he set his own stage for himself on that front. His actions were improper and likely could have been illegal.”

As I said at the time:

“Sanders later repeated a litany of laws and regulations to support this claim from FBI employment agreements to nondisclosure rules to the Privacy Act of 1974. Every line of that statement is unassailably true. The FBI has already indicated that these were FBI documents and nonpartisan Justice Department officials has indicated that they should have been treated as privileged or confidential and not disclosed. Moreover, as discussed below, even the Post recognizes that they “could have been illegal” depending on the outcome of any investigation.”

What is interesting is that the Post relied on the views of CNN legal analyst and Brookings Institution fellow Susan Hennessey who maintained, “It’s hard to even understand the argument for how Jim Comey’s memory about his conversation with the president qualifies as a record, even if he jotted it down while in his office.”

The Post indicated that it had reviewed my prior writings. Those columns list a variety of rules violated by Comey. They were not difficult to find. The FBI website warns employees that “dissemination of FBI information is made strictly in accordance with provisions of the Privacy Act; Title 5, United States Code, Section 552a; FBI policy and procedures regarding discretionary release of information in accordance with the Privacy Act; and other applicable federal orders and directives.”

One such regulation is § 2635.703, on the use of nonpublic information, which states, “An employee shall not engage in a financial transaction using nonpublic information, nor allow the improper use of nonpublic information to further his own private interest or that of another, whether through advice or recommendation, or by knowing unauthorized disclosure.”  While this provision covers current employees and would not likely to be applied to Comey on these facts, FBI forms and rules barring such use of FBI information extend to former employees.  What is clear is that the FBI has overlapping prohibitions on the type of disclosure made by Comey.

The standard FBI employment agreement bars the unauthorized disclosure of information “contained in the files, electronic or paper, of the FBI” that impact the bureau and specifically pledges that “I will not reveal, by any means, any information or material from or related to FBI files or any other information acquired by virtue of my official employment to any unauthorized recipient without prior official written authorization by the FBI.”

Nevertheless, the Post concluded that Sanders lied by simply saying Comey’s actions “were improper and likely could have been illegal.”

Now the IG has released its report (citing the very same sources that I discussed previously) and concluded that Comey violated federal laws and regulations. It states conclusively that the memos were “federal records” subject to express protections from removal and disclosure.

The inspector general has confirmed what was clear and obvious. The memos were FBI material, and Comey did violate provisions of the Federal Records Act and FBI rules clearly barring their removal and disclosure. Moreover, the inspector general agreed that it was not necessary to guarantee an investigation into Trump. Investigations were ongoing and the report cites other “options” that Comey refused to use. The report concludes, “What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.”

Despite Comey’s spin, the Report did confirm that “Memos 2 and 7 contained small amounts of information classified at the ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ level.” In other words, they were classified at the lowest level but still nonpublic, classified material. They were not declassified under 2018. Of course, Comey did not know what classification would apply because he removed them before they were reviewed. Either way, as I said at the time, it was unlikely that he would be prosecuted on such a case and he knew it.

IG Michael Horowitz described Comey’s conduct as so outrageous that it created a “dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees — and the many thousands more former FBI employees — who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information.” The report describes Justice officials as “stunned” and “shocked” by his conduct.

It is now established that Comey’s actions were clearly “improper” and that the statement that they “could have been illegal” is accurate. While the Justice Department (as I previously predicted) declined to prosecute, the report clearly establishes that he committed the very violations previously discussed — and ignored — by the Washington Post.

At the time of the Post article, I noted that, even if the Post was going to take the view of analysts like Hennessey, if should at least recognize the grounds for reasonable disagreement. Indeed, the Post itself admitted that “to some extent, the level of possible violations is a judgment call, open to legal interpretation, making it problematic to assign a Pinocchio rating.” That is where it could have easily ended the analysis, even with the omissions and contradictions discussed above.

Now a correction is in order on those two Pinocchio noses. Call it journalistic rhinoplasty.

61 thoughts on “Wrong By Two Noses: Will The Washington Post Now Perform Journalistic Rhinoplasty on Sarah Huckabee Sanders?”

  1. Sarah Sanders is a fat, stupid syncophant, so, of course, she’s getting hired by Faux News. She has lied–plenty of times. Nevertheless, all of this hype ignores the heart of this entire matter: a narcissist realty TV performer who believed himself entitled to the most powerful position in the world, no matter what it took, and who had defaulted on so many loans that no US bank would lend him any more without co-signers, and whose empire would crumble without more money, got a Russian oligarch with ties to Putin, the former head of KGB, to co-sign. The candidate’s campaign fed insider data about where a targeted, false social media campaign would provide the most assistance to Russian hackers who then spread lies about his opponent. Flynn and other loyalists got caught lying. The narcissist cheated to “win the victory”, and then tried to use the power he obtained wrongfully to cover up his misdeeds by pressuring career people like Comey to scuttle the investigation. So, Trump, his cheating, his misdeeds, his lying and his abuse of power, but most of all, his narcissistic need for power and adulation, are at the heart of this matter. It took a patriot to put American values ahead of his career to expose this. We all know what would have happened to Comey and his notes if he had strictly followed protocol, or viewed his notes as government property that he couldn’t keep a copy of or provide to others for protection. I sort of hope they DO try to go after Comey, because he will expose Trump for the crook he always has been, and the timing is just right. Talk about lawbreakers–get in line.

    When Trump approached Comey to drop the Flynn investigation, his career was over, because no matter what he did, he would lose his job. If he went along with Trump and let Flynn off, that would violate everything his career stood for up to then. The FBI is supposed to be above politics. Even if he threw away his values, Trump would eventually get rid of him on some pretext, but not before the records about Flynn and others would magically disappear, or be altered in such a way as to make Comey out to be a liar. Comey would also probably be set up for some kind of misconduct to shut him up and make him go away. Comey, no doubt, had dealt with these kinds of “win at any cost” thugs before. If Comey refused, well then, he’d still get fired, so he really had no choice. He documented Trump’s attempts to obstruct justice by writing notes and then reducing the notes to memoranda, which he knew would disappear, so he kept copies and gave copies to a friend. There can be little doubt that the records would disappear or be altered–AG Barr lied about the contents of the Mueller Report, which the public would eventually see, so making these records disappear or be altered would be a cake walk. We know that no alleged ethics would prevent Barr from doing this.

    Trump’s attempts to obstruct justice are not privileged and not even confidential. Where is there any statute or regulation that says that when a POTUS tries to obstruct justice by demanding that a criminal investigation related to his campaign be dropped, that the witness to such crimes has to follow any set of rules about recordkeeping to prevent the POTUS from having someone destroy or alter the records? Comey broke no laws–in fact his actions helped bring about the Mueller investigation and expose Trump for what he is.

    As with everything Trump, it is not about politics–it is about him. He is a malignant narcissist and everything he touches, dies.

  2. The OIG found facts that caused them to refer Comey to the DOJ for CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. That happened. Therefore, Ms Sanders was 100% correct and anyone who says otherwise is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

    It’s as simple as that, but Anon1, Benson, O’Toole, Don De Drain, and Clayton Meredith would have you believe otherwise and go off point to deliberately obfuscate. These “people” are here to derail everyone from seeing and discussing the truth. Of that there can be no doubt at this point because the truth is so clear in this case.

    1. Ivan is embellishing the IG report – this is what it said:

      “As indicated above, the OIG provided a copy of its factual findings to the
      Department for a prosecutorial decision. After reviewing the matter, the
      Department declined prosecution. ” –

      and is flat out lying about what I have said. Anyone who cares can find my opinions as well as the facts I base them on clearly stated on this thread.

    2. And…Ivan….what was the subject of the records that Comey protected by making notes, reducing them to memoranda, copying and taking them? Does Trump play fair? Does Trump lie? Comey had no choice except to be a patriot in the face of the biggest crook ever to occupy the White House.

      Faux News and Sanders love to harp about the sanctity of FBI records. Turley harps about the oath taken by FBI agents, but what about the oath that the POTUS takes? How does America deal with someone who cheated to acquire the White House and then abuses the power he obtained wrongfully to try to cover up his crimes? That’s what happened here. Look at the big picture. If Comey hadn’t kept a copy, the records would disappear, and so would his career. Trump would have lied about the entire encounter, like he lies about everything else.

  3. Karen, Karen, clean-up on aisle 6.

    Trump tweeted and said this at an appearance on Sunday:

    “In addition to Florida – South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, will most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated,” the president tweeted on Sunday. “Looking like one of the largest hurricanes ever. Already category 5. BE CAREFUL! GOD BLESS EVERYONE!”

    Birmingham NWS tweeted

    “Alabama will NOT see any impacts from #Dorian. We repeat, no impacts from Hurricane #Dorian will be felt across Alabama. The system will remain too far east. #alwx

    ABC’s Jon Karl reported last night:that Trump “misstated the storm’s possible trajectory.”.

    Trump then tweeted:

    “Such a phony hurricane report by lightweight reporter @jonkarl of @ABCWorldNews. I suggested yesterday at FEMA that, along with Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina, even Alabama could possibly come into play, which WAS true. They made a big deal about this…

    ….when in fact, under certain original scenarios, it was in fact correct that Alabama could have received some “hurt.” Always good to be prepared! But the Fake News is only interested in demeaning and belittling. Didn’t play my whole sentence or statement. Bad people!”

    This is your guy Trumpsters. Enjoy your alternate reality.

    PS Since he said this twice – not counting his morning double down – , does he really not know where Alabama is, or is he suffering dementia?

    1. Anon1(today): “This is your guy Trumpsters. Enjoy your alternate reality.”
      Anon1(yesterday): “Comey did not release anything to the public.”

      You willfully lie everyday while posting OT. You are the perfect representation of the modern left.

    2. More for Trumpsters from their guy.

      In his continuing effort to prop up his tiny ego, Trum presented a hurricane commentary today in the WH featuring a 3 day old map with a Sharpie extension into Alabama.

      https://twitter.com/i/status/1169300628000124929

      No doubt Ivan and other strong law and order types here will be on this violation and be looking for a criminal referral, because…..

      18 U.S. Code § 2074. False weather reports
      U.S. Code
      Notes
      prev | next
      Whoever knowingly issues or publishes any counterfeit weather forecast or warning of weather conditions falsely representing such forecast or warning to have been issued or published by the Weather Bureau, United States Signal Service, or other branch of the Government service, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ninety days, or both.

      (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

    3. Did you see the altered map he displayed, wherein he (or someone at his direction) used a Sharpie to try to extend the cone of possible impact?

      There is actually a federal regulation that imposes fines and/or imprisonment for publicizing a knowingly false weather report.

      While this may seem trivial, if you were someone living in Alabama and the NWS, Jim Cantore, your governor and local officials are telling you there’s no risk, but the POTUS insists otherwise and tells you that it’s just the fake media trying to make him look bad, you might have reason to worry. Alabama is true Red Republican, so there will be a certain constituency who’ll believe Trump no matter how obvious his lies are.

  4. The IG report only confirmed that Comey had violated FBI policy, there was no violations of federal law. So I don’t understand how their appraisal that saying he had likely done something illegal being false was not accurate.

    1. Been speaking English my entire life. Read your last sentence 5 times…it made NO sense the first time and made ABSOLUTELY NO sense the 5th time either …

    2. Oh, please. Stop being factual. It is so out of place here.

      At least you ignored the context in which Comey (whom I’m not particularly fond of) violated internal rules, just like Prof. Turley.

      For anyone interested in discussions that pay attention to things like context, go read empty wheel.

      1. Comey blatantly violated the terms of his employment agreement for which he certainly would have been fired had Trump not already done so. Please explain how Turley has violated the terms of his own employment agreement? What on earth are you talking about?

    3. The IG referred Comey for prosecution and the DOJ declined due to the difficulty of proving intent. If you don’t understand that then you are incurably stupid.

      1. Ivan, that’s not accurate. You made up “…due to the difficulty of proving intent. ”

        Here is the relevant passage from the report (page 10):

        “As indicated above, the OIG provided a copy of its factual findings to the
        Department for a prosecutorial decision. After reviewing the matter, the
        Department declined prosecution. ”

        That’s it.

      2. So a referral is a criminal indictment now? Would you care to share what law the IG stated Comey broke? Cite the page in the report please.

  5. The Left lie for profit. The Left lie because they profit from a Black Genocide. The Left profit by keeping Blacks down.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-supremacy-and-abortion-11567460392

    White Supremacy and Abortion
    It isn’t the pro-life movement that wants fewer black and Hispanic babies born.

    William McGurn
    Sept. 2, 2019 5:39 pm ET

    Are pro-lifers in bed with white supremacists?

    That’s Marissa Brostoff ’s contention in a Washington Post op-ed last week, wherein she alleged that “antiabortion politics” can provide “cover for white nationalist sentiments.” Her argument followed a Laurence Tribe tweet in which the Harvard law professor told his followers, “Never underestimate the way these issues and agendas are linked.”

    The timing is likely not accidental. The hope may be that tarring pro-lifers with white nationalism will distract attention from the agenda the Democrats have rallied around as they head into 2020. That would include federally funded abortion on demand up to the moment of birth—and even after birth, if necessary, as Ralph Northam, the pediatric neurologist and Democratic governor of Virginia, awkwardly made clear earlier this year.

    As with all single-issue movements, pro-lifers can be accused of many things, from political rigidity to moral absolutism. But single-issue movements also offer undeniable clarity. The pro-life proposition is simple: Human life begins at conception, and every human life is equal in dignity and worth.

    Whatever else this may be, it is incompatible with white supremacism. Perhaps that’s why so many African-Americans, especially African-American women, have been leaders in the pro-life cause.

    Mildred Jefferson, the first African-American woman to graduate from Harvard Medical School, was a founding member of the National Right to Life Committee. Kay James, now president of the Heritage Foundation, founded Black Americans for Life. Before he ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1984, Jesse Jackson spoke of abortion as “genocide.”

    Black pro-lifers, alas, are treated as if they don’t exist. Quick example: How many outlets even reported the National Day of Mourning that concluded this past Saturday with a prayer service in Birmingham, Ala., for all the black lives lost to abortion? One of its leaders was Alveda King, a niece of Martin Luther King. Another was Catherine Davis of the Restoration Project, who notes that the estimated 20 million black abortions since Roe v. Wade in 1973 are more than the entire African-American population in 1960.

    But facts don’t matter these days; narratives do, even when they are absurd. So when Ms. Brostoff went looking for a living example of white supremacy hiding behind a pro-life mask, she found author J.D. Vance. If Mr. Vance is a white nationalist, he sure stinks at it: As he noted on Twitter , he has a “bi-racial family and non-white son,” and he wrote a book, “Hillbilly Elegy,” chronicling not white superiority but white dysfunction.

    By contrast, who was it who said frankly that the Supreme Court legalized abortion in part because it was concerned about “growth in populations that we do not want too many of?”

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg has tried to walk back her remark because of its plainly eugenic implications. But that’s the point. Eugenics have been used to justify abortion from the start. It wasn’t Mr. Vance who worried the “more rebellious members” of the black community might start thinking “we want to exterminate the Negro population.” It was Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, speaking of the Negro Project—a campaign to get African-Americans to have fewer children.

    As my colleague Jason Riley noted in a column last year, the high abortion rate among African-American women is something people don’t talk about in polite society. Just one of the grim statistics Mr. Riley noted: In New York City, more black pregnancies end in abortion than in live birth. This doesn’t mean that Planned Parenthood promotes abortion so America will have fewer black citizens. But it’s undeniable that this is the outcome of what they are doing.

    Contrary to Mr. Tribe’s tweet, the real white supremacists understand and celebrate this. On AltRight.com, someone writing under the name Aylmer Fisher warns against “the pro-life temptation,” because abortion helps weed out “the least intelligent and responsible members of society,” who are disproportionately “Black, Hispanic and poor.” Ditto for Richard Spencer, the white nationalist who in May 2017 led protesters carrying torches and shouting “you will not replace us” after the Charlottesville, Va., City Council voted to remove a statue of Robert E. Lee from a downtown park. Unlike pro-lifers, who want to be “radically dysgenic, egalitarian, multi-racial human rights thumpers,” he says, “we want to be eugenic in the deepest sense of the word.”

    Against these white nationalists stand the pro-lifers, and not just on behalf of African-American babies. They also speak for the unborn child with Down syndrome, for the child conceived in rape or incest, for the unplanned pregnancy that will undeniably crimp any career plans a mother might have if she carries the baby to term. These are all hard cases, and the clarity of the pro-life proposition—the insistence that each of these lives is no less precious than any other human life—can make for a difficult political sell.

    But no pro-lifer ever said life is easy. We say life is beautiful.

    1. I think we should all be reminded that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margret Sanger was a well know White Supremicist who often spoke before the KKK. Her goal was not to free women from the burden of unwanted babies but to free WASP society from Blacks and other “undesirable” ethnicities. She was also big on forced sterlization. Hitler was known to be a fan of her writings. She spoke about the need to convince her “clients” that it was for their own good. It seems that not a lot has changed. There is an unholy alliance between PP and the politicians that vote to fund them. In return a substantial amount of of that tax payer money finds it’s way into their campaign coffers. Now the Democats are advocating abortion up until delivery and even after. Disgusting; the doctors and mothers that do this should be charged with murder.

  6. Sarah Huckabee Sanders is, by even the most charitable of stances, a habitual liar. Defend her on this point if you must, but at least acknowledge that she lies for profit and is a disgrace to the White House as an institution.

    1. “Defend her on this point if you must”

      Her comment was 100% true. The IG report makes this painfully clear. You should acknowledge your own error on something so simple as this.

  7. Wapo will not, as is feared, run out of wooden noses since they not only have earned a plentiful stock but are one of the major manufacturers of same. Change that to WaPio for WhaPinocchio or just WaPinHead.

  8. Glenn Reynolds has for years been building the case that Kessler’s a fraud. I doubt there are many people in major media outlets who have any integrity at all.

    1. We gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.”

      – Ben Franklin, 1787
      ________________

      Franklin’s was a restricted-vote republic, distinctly not a one man, one vote democrazy. As a demonstration of thesis and “original intent,” in 1789, voters were generally required to be Male, European, 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres. Citizens must have been “…free white person(s)… which is a fundamental restriction on the vote.

      Democracy (i.e. republic), from its inception in Greece and its Roman perpetuation, has always imposed restrictions on the vote.
      _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

      “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”

      – Alexander Fraser Tytler
      ____________________

      “…a body of citizens entitled to vote…”

      Merriam Webster

      republic noun
      re·​pub·​lic | \ ri-ˈpə-blik
      \
      Definition of republic

      b(1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

  9. “The inspector general has confirmed what was clear and obvious.”… that the Washington Post and its fact checkers along with other so called fact checkers are partisan and not to be trusted.

    When someone quotes a fact checker instead of providing appropriate argument, he or she should not be trusted either.

  10. And yet no charges brought by Trump’s DOJ for what JT tries to pretend was a slam dunk. Meanwhile Paul describes exactly why he doesn’t know s….

    1. Anon1 – I know you are defeated when you rely on ad hominems. When you have an actual coherent thought, let us know.

      1. Paul, the very arrogant defeat themselves. Do you think anyone on the blog actually listens to what Anon says? He is considered leftist cannon fodder carrying a wooden rifle.

  11. You really read the Washington Post? It is not worthy to be the bottom of my bird cage. Like the NYT, they are an are of the DNC and the Deep State.

      1. Paul might want to consider the fact the “Deep State” ring leader put Trump in office with his October surprise. Trump and y’all should be kissing Comey’s ass.

          1. I answered this already Paul. As a matter of simple logic, when the margin is razor thin, many factors are critical, not just one. Comey’s October surprise was the most obvious and dominant, occurring less than 2 weeks before the election and dominating headlines. As noted by 538, Hillary’s lead in the consensus polls dropped from 6% to the 2% she actually won by.

            If the “Deep State” was actually gunning for Trump, and Comey felt compelled to announce the reopening of the Clinton investigation, he could have at the same time – as a matter of fairness and for the public’s information – announced that the Trump campaign was also being investigated for collaborating with the Russians.

            Pooof!

            No more Trump.

            1. Anon1 – 538 thought Hillary had a 95+ % to win. I watched him sweat recalculating during the entire election night. I would not depend on 538. On the other-hand, Styx had Trump winning and picked all the states, except Wisconsin. Why is there is a counter-intelligence investigation against first candidate, then President-elect, then President Trump?

              1. Paul, that’s false. 538 had her at about 70% chance and trending down, with a margin of 2.9%. She won the vote by 2%. Prior to Comey’s letter she was up by almost 6%.

                Of course Comey could have announced the investigation into Trump’s campaign at the same time as a matter of fairness and information of the voters. That he didn’t destroys the stupid idea that he was victimized by a “Deep State” conspiracy.

                  1. I don’t get it. Why does Anon 1 keep saying “She won the vote”. She may have won the POPULAR vote because of the illegal aliens and others voting illegally in California and New York. However, that is meaningless because the U.S. is a Republic and the election of a President is an indirect election decided by the Electoral College. It is time to stop acting like the popular vote means anything!

                    Anon 1 also says the fact that Trump was victimized by the Deep State is a “stupid idea.” Anon 1–Just what have you been smoking, or perhaps with what substance did you spike your Kool-aid?

                    1. One other thing.

                      Like Natacha, he proceeds as if he did not know the difference between a plurality and a majority.

                    2. DSS and Lawrence – the state of civics education in the US is abysmal. Arizona tried to require all their high school students to pass a standardized civics exam to graduate from high school. Then came Obama and Common Core and civics was gone.

                    3. Paul, maybe Turley should give a civics test to all people that wish to post on the blog. It could be similar to the test all those legal immigrants that are trying to become legal citizens have to pass. I’ll bet most of the posters from the left wouldn’t do much better than the illegal aliens they are so anxious to have crossing our borders.

                    4. Arithmetic leading to elementary algebra; reading and writing and English grammar; and the fundamentals of American history, geography and civics are the appropriate components of primary schooling (to be continued in secondary schools for slow students who age out of primary schools). Secondary schooling is properly vocational for most.

                    5. Aww, you guys really like me!!

                      Lawrence, there were no significant numbers (you know, more than a couple of hundred) of illegal votes anywhere in 2016. Your handlers are lying to you.

                      Some of us object to losers like Bush and Trump getting in the WH when most Americans hate their guts. Call us old fashioned.

                      As to the Deep State and Trump, think about Larry. Who’s Trump’s Daddy if not Comey?

                    6. “Call us old fashioned.”

                      Yes, your type of old fashioned individual is like the KKK that used violence and intimidation needed due to their blatant ignorance.

                    7. Because Anon1 lies and deceives deliberately all the time:

                      Anon1: “Comey did not release anything to the public.”

                  2. TIAs plurality/majority thing is a non sequitur for him to explain.

                    No, not the concept. The point would be more like it.

                    1. Anon1 – I hate to use Wikipedia, however they are correct in this case.

                      Standards were released for mathematics and English language arts on June 2, 2010, with a majority of states adopting the standards in the subsequent months. States were given an incentive to adopt the Common Core Standards through the possibility of competitive federal Race to the Top grants. U.S. President Barack Obama and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced the Race to the Top competitive grants on July 24, 2009, as a motivator for education reform. To be eligible, states had to adopt “internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the work place.”[18] Though states could adopt other college- and career-ready standards and still be eligible, they were awarded extra points in their Race to the Top applications if they adopted the Common Core standards by August 2, 2010. Forty-one states made the promise in their application.[19][20] Virginia and Texas were two states that chose to write their own college and career-ready standards, and were subsequently eligible for Race to the Top. Development of the Common Core Standards was funded by the governors and state schools chiefs, with additional support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Pearson Publishing Company, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, and others.[21]

                    2. Paul, the roots of Common Core were actually begun under Reagan and heavily promoted by Jeb! and W, though it was not implemented until OBama.

                      “..This effort started with, and stayed with, states. Steps began in 2007 when George W. Bush was president.

                      In fact, the idea of common core standards was largely a Republican one, designed to help provide needed accountability for Bush’s signature initiative, No Child Left Behind. Former GOP education secretaries Bill Bennett and Rod Paige wrote in an opinion piece in 2007 that: “In a world of fierce economic competition, we can’t afford to pretend the current system is getting us where we need to go. Greater federal interference is not the answer – but neither is a naive commitment to ‘states’ rights.’… Standards set nationally, daily decisions made locally – strikes the best balance.” The two added that the strategy should be “a ‘bottom-up’ approach, with states working together on a voluntary basis to forge common expectations.”

                      That is exactly the Common Core standards plan today.

                      The Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association coordinated a state-led effort to develop the Common Core state standards. It was designed through a collaboration among teachers, school chiefs, administrators and other experts.

                      The standards do not – I repeat – do not set up a one-size-fits-all mandated national curriculum. Nor do they spell out how or what teachers should teach. What the initiative does do is lay out what concepts students are expected to know at each grade level.

                      The voluntary effort had huge support from Republican governors when it first rolled out, and it still has the ardent backing of former Florida Gov. (and expected presidential candidate) Jeb Bush. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is also a supporter.

                      But the initiative started getting backlash as soon as President Obama began voicing support and made such standards one factor in states getting federal Race to the Top grants. You’d think conservatives would be boastful that Obama found value in an initiative they had championed. But like so much in today’s hyper-partisan political world, Obama’s acceptance of the idea made it toxic to many on the right….”

                      https://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/article9115940.html

                      “…George W. Bush emerged with his own campaign as a “compassionate conservative” using the slogan “leave no child behind.” Bush’s No Child Left Behind law picked up right where his father and Bill Clinton left off, with the same standards-and-assessment model of federal control.

                      When the failure of No Child Left Behind became too obvious to ignore, the same failed ideas were repackaged by the National Governors Association under the label Common Core. Although the NGA is a private, corporate-funded lobbying organization with no power over public schools, the Common Core was quickly adopted by 46 states and the publishing industry rolled out new textbooks supposedly “aligned” to the Common Core.

                      The Common Core was promoted heavily by Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education, which received large gifts from charities controlled by Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, Rupert Murdoch, and Pearson PLC, the world’s largest textbook publisher….”

                      https://eagleforum.org/publications/column/common-core-ended-bush-dynasty.html

      2. Anonymous – we already know from video and meeting notes from the NYT that they are not mundane and we know from various emails and testimony that the WaPo is just as liable. You need to get your blinders off.

  12. How many thousands of “Pinocchios” did they give to the most immaculate, supreme, noble and serene , noblesse Brother Blare Noze?

Leave a Reply