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.
Hard to believe it’s been three quarters of a century since the battle. And that it was only two years later that we invaded Normandy. When I was a kid, hearing my parents talk about it, I always thought of WW II as being a long war, but America was only in it for three and a half years. Of course, when I was a kid, three and a half years seemed like a long time.
[Monday-morning update]
[Bumped]
I hadn’t realized what a piece of work he was.
Reflections from Kyle Smith.
His boss isn’t amused.
I’m sad that I’m going to have to fire @rkylesmith so soon after he started. https://t.co/OERKjzBfB0
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) June 1, 2017
What does he have on Huma and Hillary?
A lot, I’d bet. But he also wants not just to avoid prison, but to stay on this side of the dirt.
Andy McCarthy says it’s time to return to constitutional government.
What a concept.
[Update a few minutes later]
I hadn’t realized that Nixon had signed that abominable “Treaty on Treaties”:
President Trump is taking a significant step in removing the United States from the Paris agreement. But the step should not be significant, or politically fraught, at all. President Obama’s eleventh-hour consent to the agreement’s terms should have been nothing more consequential than symbolic pom-pom waving at his fellow climate alarmists. It should have had no legal ramifications.
Think, moreover, of how badly the treaty on treaties betrays our constitutional system, which is based on representative government that is accountable to the people. The Constitution’s treaty process is designed to be a presumption against international entanglements. Unless two-thirds of senators are convinced than an agreement between or among countries is truly in the national interests of the United States — not of some “progressive” conception of global stability, but of our people’s interests — the agreement will not be ratified, and therefore should be deemed null and void.
He was a terrible president, though not as bad as Humphrey or McGovern would have been.
[Late-afternoon update]
The outrage over Trump’s decision to withdraw is like Groundhog Day.
[Friday-morning update]
Why the Paris Agreement is useless, in one graph.
[Update mid-morning]
Trump blocks the first of Obama’s three authoritarianisms. It’s going to be a lot harder to undo the Iran disaster.
[Update a few minutes later]
The sound and fury of Trump’s Paris pull out:
this wasn’t about measurable change, it was about optics, pure and simple.
Domestically, Trump just fulfilled a campaign promise and mollified many in his base who might have been concerned about his steadfast commitment to scuttling ‘globalist’ international treaties. He stuck it to the Left, and simultaneously dismantled the last important piece of Obama’s green legacy. (At this point, President Obama has precious few lasting environmental policy successes to point to from his time in office. That’s an inherent problem with governing by the executive action, as Obama chose to do. Of course, there’s a bright side to that fact for greens: Trump is also unlikely to make a large impact on environmental policy through Congress, so his legacy on that front should have a similarly short shelf life.)
Internationally, Trump has flipped the bird to world. Developing countries will be gnashing their teeth at the thought of America backing out its financial commitments. Don’t be surprised to see a kind of domino effect, with leaders in the developing world jumping ship now that the cash flow promised them through the GCF could be drying up. As for the richer countries, they will see it as something akin to green treason.
China may try to exploit the opening, and talk a big game about joining the EU in taking on a climate leadership role. If this comes to pass, understand that it will be nothing more than posturing. China is far and away the global leader in greenhouse gas emissions, and for all of the EU’s stern tone and finger wagging on climate change, the bloc’s latest data show that its emissions actually increased 0.5 percent in 2015. Contrast that with the United States, which saw emissions drop a whopping 3 percent last year as a result of the continuing (shale-enabled) transition from coal to natural gas.
And that gets us to the heart of the issue. One’s opinion of the new climate course Trump just charted for America will ultimately depend on how much faith one puts in climate diplomacy as the holy grail for addressing climate change. The truth is, climate diplomacy has always been about preening, posturing, and moralizing—about optics above all else. What happened today was also all about optics (intentionally so) and that’s why greens committed to finding “diplomatic” solutions are pulling their hair out today.
But let’s not forget that Paris was a next-to-worthless agreement, and U.S. climate policy is going to look very much the same without it as it would have if Trump had announced a decision to stick to the deal. America’s real climate impacts will be determined by how quickly we can transition to a more energy efficient information economy and, more importantly, by our ability to develop and adopt new technologies (the pairing of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal well drilling being the most important example of the past decade). Paris had nothing to do with any of that.
Sound and fury, signifying nothing.