Was this the last straw?
There doesn’t ever seem to be a last straw with these swamp creatures. And Congresspeople can’t be impeached, but they can be expelled. If the Republicans retake the House, that should be one of their first orders of business.
Over climate. At the University of Washington.
This should be a big story, or they won’t stop. Presumably, that department head would claim to be a climate scientist, but he’s not any kind of scientist.
I’m not sure this is as big a proliferation concern as some say, but I have no idea where they get this “20% of all launches have failures” thing. That’s not true in general, and its far from true for U.S. systems.
…and her anti-corporate fixation.
She reminds me of Woodrow Wilson, without the virulent racism.
The fact that Wall Street is saying that they won’t support her, and might even support Trump, is amusing in the context of the popular myth that the rich are Republicans.
We thought we were going to hear next week if SCOTUS would grant our petition for certiori, but just heard that they’ve delayed it to the next conference on October 11. Apparently at least one justice is interested, but we can’t know if that’s because they want to move it to a less-crowded conference than next week’s for fuller discussion, or because they know they’ll turn it down, but want to write a dissent.
As I’m listening to the current idiocy on the Hill, some thoughts from a former CIA analyst and staffer.
This reminds me of Democrat sandbagging with the Blasey Ford situation.
[Update a few minutes later]
The “Whistleblower Report” follows the same template as the Steele “Dossier.”
Yes, there seems to be a lot of circular reporting to make it appear that there is more corroboration than there actually is.
[Update a few minutes later]
Adam Schiff makes up his own version of the phone call. Schiff is a clown, who shouldn’t be in Congress, let alone a committee chairman.
[Update a couple minutes later]
I’m sure you’ll be as surprised as I am to learn that the “whistleblower” had a bias toward a rival candidate to Trump.
The other victim.
She’s lucky she wasn’t called a nut and a slut, as they were going to do with Lewinsky.
The asymmetry here is striking with these horrible people. In the case of Clinton, they were pressuring women to lie to protect a rapist. In this case, they pressured a woman to lie to falsely accuse a good man of being a rapist. In both cases, these people who (in some cases are the same people) hold themselves up as righteous paragons of virtue, though they are in fact monsters seeking nothing but power.
Like “Russian collusion,” (and like almost everything the Left accuses others of), it’s pure projection on the part of the Democrats.
[Update a while later]
Why the Democrats are going insane.
The latest analysis, at the WSJ. We should know next week if SCOTUS will be taking up the case.
[Update Tuesday afternoon]
Someone posted the whole thing in comments, but that’s a copyright violation, and not fair use. So I’ll delete that comment, but excerpt it here:
The legal issue hinges on whether what Mr. Simberg said is subjective opinion that should be decided in public debate, as NR contends, or a factual assertion that a jury could find false and defamatory, as Mr. Mann claims. By sending the case to a jury, the D.C. Court of Appeals has rewarded Mr. Mann’s attempt to use the courts to settle the science and silence the criticism. That sets a dangerous precedent.
In some senses the Mann suit may represent the perfect storm for litigation because so many consider climate science beyond question. The opinion of the appellate court, for example, carries the whiff of a religious authority rendering final judgment—the idea being that university faculties and other authorities have spoken so debate must be closed.
There’s also the venue. This lawsuit didn’t go through the federal courts but through D.C.’s equivalent of state courts, where judges and juries probably aren’t the friendliest to conservatives. With so many publications, think tanks and activists keeping offices in the nation’s capital, it isn’t hard to see how Washington could quickly become the venue for similar lawsuits.
The larger point is that while so-called climate deniers might be the first defendants, they are unlikely to be the last. If the D.C. ruling stands, National Review asks in its petition to the high court, what’s to prevent, say, Charles Koch from suing Greenpeace for accusing him of having funded a “junk study . . . loaded with lies and misrepresentations of actual climate change science”? Or Steve Bannon from founding a deep-pocketed organization to sue Trump opponents, and then shopping for a venue where a friendly jury might agree that an over-the-top opinion is a defamatory statement of fact?
“The only way to protect free speech for our allies is to protect it for our adversaries,” says Art Spitzer, legal director for the ACLU of D.C. “Today it’s unacceptable to deny climate change, but yesterday it was unacceptable to deny that homosexuality was sinful, and tomorrow it may be unacceptable to deny that robots are better parents than humans. Society can’t progress unless people are free to express and consider heretical ideas, because there’s no way to predict which heretical ideas will be tomorrow’s truths.”
The ball’s in the Supreme Court—if the justices will take it.
I should note that it’s not just as NR contends, but as CEI contends as well. We’ll find out next week.
[Update a while later]
Related: Why left-wing anti-Semitism is worse than white supremacy.