In one case we have a politician shot by a deranged nutcase for no discernible political reason, and in the other we have an attempted assassination of dozens of congressmen for a clearly articulated one. And yet observe the coverage.
Not to mention, of course, the completely baseless smearing of Sarah Palin at the time.
How they domesticated humans thousands of years ago.
[Update a few minutes later]
Another take on the same subject.
Sarah Hoyt is worried that we are losing the war to save it.
I’ve been very concerned about this myself for years. Before 911, in fact; I’ve been concerned about Islam since the 80s. Whenever I hear people say “There’s no military solution to this,” I always think that of course there is. But it’s one that could be pyrrhic.
Over six years later, the lie that won’t die, because it’s important to the narrative. More from Guy Benson:
The Times has added an online correction on this coruscating inaccuracy, reducing the likelihood that they’ll get sued over their libelous bilge. I obviously approve of the decision to alter this grossly inaccurate content, but the fact that their essay was approved as fit to print in the first place last evening is quite revealing. A central piece of their argument was rooted in fantastical left-wing folk lore, repeated so frequently by people who populate institutions like the New York Times editorial board that it morphed into a “fact.” The new version of the editorial still mentions Palin’s map, which is totally unconnected to anything of relevance on this subject. A bizarre non-sequitur. Their utterly wrong, unsupported implication remains intact. How about deleting the entire piece? Also, having made a change to their virtual copy under intense criticism today, will the Times showcase an apology and retraction in tomorrow’s print edition?
Don’t bet on it. Palin should sue them. This is a classic case of reckless disregard for the truth.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Cool, she may do it:
Sarah Palin indicated on Thursday that she might sue the New York Times over editorial that suggested she was in some way responsible for the 2011 shooting of then-Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords.
“Commonsense suggestion by a journalist, am talking to attorneys this [morning] and exploring options,” she said. “[By the way], wonder WHY someone would no longer be in public eye? Think constant libel & slander have anything to do with it?”
I’ve often wondered if much of her erratic behavior since her election loss was a result of all of the vile abuse she’s had to take from the media, and the Left. But I repeat myself.
Are running our lives.
And in many cases, ruining them.
There was an interesting conference in New York last week (that I would have liked to attend if it had been in my budget). It’s still hard to raise money for it, because modern philanthropists don’t know the history
[Update a while later]
Sorry, added missing link.
It seems to be coming to a sad end:
How pathetic Comey sounded during his testimony. A weak man who couldn’t even muster the courage to tell Donald Trump to his face when he thought Trump had crossed a line. Instead, Comey schemed behind the scenes to document conduct which even Comey will not publicly claim was criminal.
Trump’s distrust of Comey ultimate[ly] was vindicated by what we now know about Comey.
Pathetic also was the word that came to mind when Comey described how he succumbed to pressure from then Attorney General Loretta Lynch to call the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server a “matter.” That was how the Clinton campaign wanted it portrayed. From an electoral perspective, they dreaded the accurate description that Hillary was under “investigation.” The Attorney General served as the functional equivalent of a campaign enforcer in the campaign against Trump.
It all puts the secret meeting between Lynch and Bill Clinton in a new perspective, and should result in a re-opened investigation not only of Hillary’s server but a new investigation of Lynch.
Yes, it should. It should also result in a proper investigation of Hillary Clinton and her server, and finally, after all these decades of Clinton corruption, indictments. History indicates that it probably won’t, though.
Here's a summary of 10 things we learned from former FBI Director Comey's testimony today. pic.twitter.com/eWrJiFZimS
— /pol/ News Forever (@polNewsForever) June 9, 2017
[Mid-morning update]
Mr. Comey’s not very good day:
The Donald was revealed again as a man who talks too much, with a gift for the memorable insult, the demand to have his ego stroked. But didn’t we already know that? What we know now about James Comey, only suspected earlier, is that he’s what the British call “wet,” a wimp under pressure. He offered evidence at last of collusion, but it was only evidence of his eagerness to collude with his own emotions. He was incapable of standing up to Donald Trump, beyond the instinctive deference everyone accords a president.
He’s guided by his feelings, which perhaps explains why he has become a late hero of the present age. He testified that he “felt” “directed” to terminate the investigation into the activities of Mike Flynn. “I mean, this is the president of the United States, with me alone, saying, ‘I hope this.’ I took it as, this is what he wants me to do.”
One of the most telling moments of the day was an exchange with Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, a Democrat, asking the question that Republicans have raised over the weeks of rumor and not much real news. When he “felt” that Mr. Trump was asking him to throttle his investigation, she asked: “Why didn’t you stop, and say, ‘Mr. President, this is wrong?’““That’s a great question,” Mr. Comey replied. “Maybe if I were stronger, I would have.”
This is the rough and tough G-man, scourge of killers, robbers, rapists, terrorists and purveyors of wicked mayhem the world over. “Maybe if I were stronger, I would have.” That’s a real man that real men would follow anywhere.
My non-hot take from the Comey hearing: Comey continues to behave…strangely.
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) June 9, 2017
Fine by me. https://t.co/jf1GZBtgdb
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) June 9, 2017
[Update a few minutes later]
This is from before the testimony, but an interesting read: James Comey, novelist.
[Update late morning]
Trey Gowdy is taking over the House Oversight Committee. He seems like just the guy to get to the bottom of Lynch’s obstruction of justice.
[Update just before noon]
Did Comey’s leaks violate the FBI Employee Agreement?
Probably.
[Mid-afternoon update]
Comey came to indict Trump, but he may have indicted himself:
Congress criminalizes lying to Congress under oath. The relevant statutes are 18 USC 1621 and 18 USC 1001. Section 1621 requires a person first, be making a statement under a sworn oath; second, that statement be “material” to the proceeding; third, the statement be false; and fourth, the statement be knowingly and willfully false. Section 1001 mirrors those elements, without the same tribunal prerequisites: it also requires the government prove a person willfully made a materially false statements. In either case, the primary focus is: first, a false statement; second, a false statement as material to the matter; third, the false statement be made knowingly and willfully. A statement is not false if it can be interpreted in a completely innocent manner. A statement is not material if it is not particularly relevant or pertain to the subject of the matter. Willfully remains a very high standard of proof in the criminal law, though less in perjury cases than in tax cases: it requires the person know they are lying.
Sadly, for Comey, Sessions has the smoking gun: Sessions’ own email sent and read by Comey, according to the Department of Justice statement, showing Comey in fact did know “the parameters of the Attorney General’s recusal” despite his repeated comments to the contrary to Senator Kamala Harris’ questions.
Oops.
[Saturday-morning update]
The damaging case against James Comey. And Trump committed no crime. Get over it.
[Bumped]
Another reminder, this time from @Popehat, that there is no such thing, in terms of the First Amendment. Warning, pop-up ads.
Almost a decade ago, I had a post about my boyhood in Flint, MI, that got picked up by a Flint nostalgia blog. At the time, there wasn’t much response to it, but I see that the post there is now the number one search item for “Flint Musical Tent,” and there are some great memories there, including one from just a few months ago. Unfortunately, still nothing on line about the A.C. concerts. Next time I’m back there, I may see if there is anything in the library at Kettering.
After several years, the documentary is finally out. Jeff Foust has a review.
I also remained on the cutting-room floor. It sounds like it’s a good history, but as Jeff notes, vague on what to fight for now.