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.
Because he would have had to find the president guilty as well:
As I explained in February, when it emerged that the White House was refusing to disclose at least 22 communications Obama had exchanged with then-secretary Clinton over the latter’s private e-mail account, we knew that Obama had knowingly engaged in the same misconduct that was the focus of the Clinton probe: the reckless mishandling of classified information.
To be sure, he did so on a smaller scale. Clinton’s recklessness was systematic: She intentionally set up a non-secure, non-government communications framework, making it inevitable that classified information would be mishandled, and that federal record-keeping laws would be flouted. Obama’s recklessness, at least as far as we know, was confined to communications with Clinton — although the revelation that the man presiding over the “most transparent administration in history” set up a pseudonym to conceal his communications obviously suggests that his recklessness may have been more widespread.
This doesn’t surprise me at all. And I’ll bet that some of Lerner’s missing emails about IRS targeting are also between her and the president. and they would reveal offenses of the nature that Nixon had to resign for even attempting.
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]
My friend Bob Poole (who has been advocating this for almost half a century) says it’s time to get it out of the sixties.
Another reminder, this time from @Popehat, that there is no such thing, in terms of the First Amendment. Warning, pop-up ads.
…is having quite a year. And it’s not half over. Yesterday, Elon implied in a tweet that FH could fly in late September or early October.
Its course catalog is bonkers.
Via Instapundit, who asks “Why is this place even accredited?”
The rot in academia is deep.
[Update a few minutes later]
Related: Many colleges fail to improve critical-thinking skills. Of course they do. That would get in the way of indoctrination.
Michael Barone breaks it down. I wonder how much the recent terror attacks affected May’s reputation as Home Minister?
They seem to be trying to get a little more innovative, but they don’t seem to be in a big hurry about it:
Reusable lift-body launchers will be developed in three stages — rocket-engine partial reusable vehicle, rocket-engine full reusable vehicle and combined cycle-engine reusable vehicle, said Lu.
The Long March carrier rockets still have room for improvement, Lu said, adding that the CALT is developing a heavy-lift launch vehicle with a payload of 140 tonnes to low Earth orbit and 50 tonnes to lunar transfer orbit.
The heavy-lift carrier rocket is currently called the Long March-9, and it should be sent into space by 2030, he said.
[Via Parabolic Arc]
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.