FBI Deputy Director investigating Hillary did not report $600K donation
By "major" they mean $600,000. That presents, at a minimum, the "appearance of impropriety" which is sufficient to require someone in the FBI to recuse themselves from a case. That this official did not do so, and in addition chose not to report the very substantial donations from someone he was investigating, is enough to prove to me he had something to hide. Hell, under the circumstances -- investigating a prominent politician in the middle of a presidential campaign -- I'd probably be willing to put those facts before a jury by themselves.
Now that this information is public, the ethics watchdogs at the DOJ should be putting together a case for bribery.
Maryland wants to give sanctuary to an illegal Alien who raped 14-year-old
Not included in this particular article, but available in others, is that the other alleged attacker is likely also here illegally.
Obviously, Maryland officials aren't specifically passing their sanctuary state policies just to protect one or two individual illegal aliens who committed a pretty awful crime. However, protecting such criminals is the end result of sanctuary policies. Allowing illegal aliens to basically flaunt the law and live without taxes, laws, or regulations to inhibit their behavior has consequences. Most of those consequences are economic, but occasionally, much worse.
How to disable the windows 10 keylogger. Don't assume this makes your Windows 10 device actually safe. I'm posting it here mostly as a note for myself, since I've ended up with a couple of Windows 10 machines (unwillingly).
There's a lot of descriptive adjectives in that paragraph. A lot of stage-setting. A lot of "Let's introduce the person we're writing the article about" stuff. Presumably, it's based on what that individual recollected about the incident she was describing, and told the author of the article.
The incident, by the way, is: she interviewed a job applicant at her company, a man, and she didn't think he was taking her seriously. Later, she overheard him taking a male interviewer with less experience at the company much more seriously, and concluded that the candidate was sexist.
She might be right. I don't know the candidate and for all I know, he's a sexist, misogynist pig.
I also don't know her. Not a clue about her coding skills or her ability to program. But just reading the introductory paragraph of the article, I think I can identify the problem.
How does this woman try to establish her technical credibility? She says she's "good natured and self confident", two attributes that have nothing to do with writing code. She talks about wearing an outfit -- jeans, hoodie, sneakers -- that "signals coding gravitas". She might have even been wearing logo gear sold by the company she works for. Fashion sense -- or lack thereof -- also has nothing to do with writing code. Lots of people lack fashion sense and wear hoodies or company logo shirts. Few of them can actually code. (Few of ANY group that doesn't relate to programming can actually code).
How do people generally identify other people who can code? I assure you it's not by checking a dress code. The people who can code generally do not care how they dress. They don't think about it. They are too busy thinking about writing code. This woman, whatever her technical skills, clearly spends a lot of time thinking about what she is wearing. That's a contraindicator for coding.
It's not perfect; there are women in tech who can code and have great fashion sense. But if you ask them about their work, they won't point to the hoodie they are wearing with the company logo on it. They won't reference their clothing to establish their technical credibility. Instead, they'll talk about what they've written, what programming languages they can speak, projects they have worked on.. any number of things, really, except clothing isn't on the list.
So the advice I would give to any woman interested in working in the tech field: take the chip off your shoulder, focus on getting the job done, and focus on developing your technical skills and contributing. If you want to talk about clothing, or wear a company-logo hoodie, that's fine. But it won't sell your skills to anyone.
Republican leadership should have been ready for this. They only ran on it for 6 years. Clearly they meant to lose gracefully to Hillary and were surprised and shocked and dismayed when pit bull Trump broke out of their yard and actually caught the damn car they had been pretending to chase for years.
I'm glad this first plan failed. Now the party needs to go back into a huddle and come up with legislation that actually repeals Obamacare. And here's the deal: everyone knows Obamacare is failing. The Democrats will yell and squirm and complain, but they know Obamacare is failing too. There are people who will say "Let it fail!", and maybe they have a point, but laws and regulatory schemes don't "fail" just because they cease being economically viable. Someone has to actually go in and repeal the laws, reverse the regulations, and either set up a new framework or turn the free market loose.
If the Democrats get back into power with a supermajority, they will go for single-payer. It's what they always wanted and they can point to Obamacare and say it didn't go far enough. If the Republicans do a half-assed repeal there will still be a health care problem when the Democrats get back into power and that's exactly what they will do. The only way to save a free market in health care is to repeal Obamacare and create a free market in health care.
What insane kind of policy is that? Anything that might get attention can't be processed? Not only does this make complaining a catch-22, what does any amount of public attention have to do with whether an organization is following the tax laws? (And wouldn't that public attention rule stop the IRS from approving Satanic high school clubs? I mean, sure, 1st Amendment right, but public attention!)
Read the whole thing; it's worse than just that short summary seems. And yes I remember when this policy came up during the initial IRS investigation.
The Republican Establishment line on recent revelations that Trump's associates, and possibly Trump himself, had their conversations recorded and transcribed while Trump was conducting his transition appears to be that somehow it wasn't "wiretapping" because Trump wasn't personally targeted. His communications were only collected "incidentally" to surveillance of someone else, which is presumed to be legitimate and authorized by warrant.
I'm sorry, that's a distinction so fine that it might as well not even exist. If Trump's transition team's communications were picked up, than his conversations (that were picked up) were wiretapped. It might not be all of them if he wasn't the target, but the ones that were picked up -- absolutely those conversations were wiretapped and thus so was Trump.
It does change the legal questions, but it doesn't change the basic fact that Trump's transition team communications were wiretapped.
So with that out of the way, what else is wrong here?
Well, apparently those communications were widely disseminated by Obama's order shortly before the inauguration, and the identify of at least one American participant in the "incidentally collected" conversations was leaked. (Presumably that's Flynn). Unmasking that American identity and leaking it to the press? Felonies for each conversation and each different American involved. So just because the collection was "incidental" doesn't mean it's not a big deal. And that bit about Obama ordering the widening of distribution right before the inauguration? That reeks of a political motive. So does the massive leaking to the press.
And you know what none of that actually explains? The original news reports about three separate warrants targeting Trump and/or his associates. There's the FISA warrant that was requested and denied, which mentioned Trump, and then the second FISA warrant that did not mention Trump and was granted. And the third non-FISA warrant which may or may not have been granted. That sequence stinks to high heaven.
And Comey isn't cooperating with Congressional investigations here either. Given that we're looking at allegations way the hell beyond a simple counterintelligence investigation, that cannot stand. And given Comey's earlier, repeated, attempts to interfere in the election process by both omission and commission, I think it's time Comey spent more time with his family. He's clearly either incompetent or being blackmailed by multiple parties.
Another point that's not being recognized:
It's one thing to know what Michael Flynn said to the Russian Ambassador. Presumably the Russian Ambassador's phone is tapped 24/7 on general principles. How did Yates (and the press) know what Flynn told VP Pence about that conversation in order to leak the contradiction?
They are accused of rewriting executive orders, conspiring to limit initial hiring during the transition via budgetary manipulation, coordinating press leaks, and quite a bit more, including (by implication) the various coordinated leaks alleging Russian ties.
A lot of these things strike me as not just firing offenses (even for "civil service" positions), but criminal offenses, up to and including treason. When you work for the government, you are -- or should be, anyway -- putting your own opinions in second place to what the elected officials want. Actively sabotaging those officials is a serious matter.
Can someone remind McConnel not to backstab his own president?
When the president proposes cutting liberal programs, you applaud and do your best to force those cuts through. Maybe some have to be bargained away, but you fight as hard as you can to keep them. You don't volunteer your opposition, especially not when your party controls all three branches. Even if you are going to ignore the White House budget and create your own (which is fine, though somewhat odd when your party controls all three branches), you don't call a press conference to say you think your own party's president is wrong. Especially on a policy where the President's position is closer to the party's platform than yours.
And you certainly don't use a Supreme Court nomination hearing as an opportunity to threaten a president of your own party with impeachment, like Senator Lyndsey Graham just did.
It really does look like it's Trump and the People versus the Uniparty and the Deep State.
Details are sketchy, but so far it seems like 12 people wounded, 2 dead (so far). The method appears to be a combination of two common attack methods: running over people with a vehicle and then getting out of the vehicle to stab more people (police officers).
The police are already calling it a terror attack, which is a refreshingly rapid analysis of motivation.
I think this nails it: Comey is blackmailable. Hillary has dirt on him, and so does someone else. That's why he's being pulled in so many different directions. He has at least three masters (Hillary, someone else opposed to Hillary, and the actual elected president).
But note the careful wording of this denial. Comey admits to some sort of investigation of Trump or his associate's connection to Russia. But then he denies that the FBI or DOJ had conducted a phone tap of Trump's phones specifically, and specifically that Barack Obama ordered it personally.
What if Trump's associates phones were the ones tapped, as news organizations breathlessly reported not long ago? What if Obama did not personally order it through the FBI or DOJ -- what if it was performed through the CIA, NSA, or British intelligence? (Comey did also deny that it was done through British intelligence, but how would he know?)
I can't imagine a good outcome here. Does the Deep State think that if they somehow unseat a legitimately elected president that the people will meekly roll over and accept it?
UPDATE: House Intelligence Chairman confirms "incidental" surveillance of Trump. As the puppy-blender is fond of saying, Trump should be taken seriously but not literally, while the media insists on taking him literally but not seriously. In this case, it appears that Trump's claim was accurate, and the FBI is refusing to cooperate with the House investigation.
I'm not sure why, but I'm pretty sure that it was Wilkins who was actually behind both the scandal and the coverup. The most positive spin I can give Trump on this one is that maybe he's waiting to see what's in the 7000 documents Judicial Watch recently uncovered, so he can fire Koskinen then. If he fires Koskinen now, with Wilkins already gone, he might be left with no one to fire when the coverup finally unravels.
That doesn't sound like the statement of someone who has actually checked to find out whether any surveillance was conducted. It sounds like someone making a rote denial based on the assumption that any such request would be denied according to their understanding of British law. But that's simply not how intelligence agencies work. First, any such request would undoubtedly be framed in national security language ("Look, we can't spy on a presidential candidate. It would look bad. But we think this guy has Russian connections. We need you to spy on him -- using the NSA's infrastructure but you originate the request to get around US law -- and give us the take so we can make sure this guy isn't a Russian plant"). Second, such agencies basically ignore the law, since no one is willing to enforce it against them. They use national security law against others, they don't follow it themselves. And third, they don't report on their requests and operations to random government officials who are authorized to confirm or deny such requests to press inquiries.
If in fact the Obama Administration made a request of GCHQ to access the phone calls of his advisors, there are probably three people at GCHQ who know it happened. That's the person who received the request, the person who carried out the request, and at most one level of management to authorize it. And none of them are likely to be talking to the press.
In fact, the article I quoted above is probably best understood as a veiled threat. Shut up and don't admit to anything, or we will prosecute you to cover up our involvement. Sound familiar? As always, if you or any member of your team are captured or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions.