Power Line has the documents, but not the details yet. The documents suggest Cohen lied about exactly when a real-estate project in Moscow was terminated. Cohen claimed it was before the presidential rate started, but the documents allege there were related contacts (including invitations to travel) as late as January 20th, 2016 (the date Trump took office). It references, without naming, two individuals who are presumably Trump and a close associate or family member of Trump. It suggests Cohen lied about not keeping those individuals briefed on the Moscow real estate deal.

Other than Cohen lying, and the possibility (not the fact, just the possibility) of some sort of business quid pro quo attempt by the Russians, there's nothing here about the election or collusion. It's a minor lie about a business deal that never happened. Stupid for Cohen to lie about it, criminal for him to lie about it to Congress, but I don't see cause to panic about Russian Collusion here.

That might change if the content of those conversations contained something nefarious, but there's no indication here of anything more than a business deal that didn't happen.

Mueller will probably focus on the January 20th call to Cohen. That's Trump's inauguration date and the call was supposedly from the Russian President. It seems more likely to be a political/diplomatic call than one about a business deal.

It's worth noting that this is yet another case of Mueller creating a process crime. Cohen is not pleading guilty to collusion, or to any illegal act in and of itself. He's pleading guilty to lying to Congress about communications concerning a business deal that didn't happen. Yeah, he shouldn't have lied about it -- and that's assuming it wasn't a case of "lying" like Mike Flynn "lied". But without Mueller's investigation, there would be no crime here.

The real question here is: what did Trump's written answers say on these topics? Cohen is only pleading guilty after those answers were completed and returned. Will Mueller claim Trump is lying in those answers based on a contradiction with Cohen's testimony? That's my guess about where this is going: Mueller either will do that, or is frustrated about not being able to do it. The latter guess is because of the kerfluffle about Manafort's joint defense agreement with Trump.

Reading tea leaves... I think Trump gave correct, accurate, answers and Mueller is claiming the scalps he can claim. Cohen for lying to Congress, and whatever he can get against Manafort for letting Trump know what Mueller was trying to catch him out for.

UPDATE: Looks like my tea leaves are accurate.

UPDATE: It's probably worth noting that, despite Cohen's guilty plea (presumably under pressure from Mueller), the document describing how he lied is subject to interpretation. For example, Cohen is said to have lied about never agreeing to travel to Russia as part of the deal. He discussed hypothetical travel, and in fact, never agreed to actual travel, just to schedule ideas for a hypothetical trip. Similarly, how much involvement is "limited" involvement? One briefing? Two? Three? Over a year or two?

Cohen pled guilty to lying, but it's not at all clear to me from the evidence laid out that he actually did.

UPDATE: Mueller left out exculpatory information.

Conservative Treehouse

Following major drops in the sedan sector of the U.S. automotive market, General Motors CEO Mary Barra announced plans to halt production next year at three assembly plants: Lordstown, Ohio; Hamtramck, Michigan; and Oshawa, Ontario. GM will fully stop production on several models assembled at those plants: Chevrolet Cruze, Cadillac CT6 and the Buick LaCrosse. [Not mentioned here, the Volt will also be canceled]

Why would GM be canceling a lot of its sedans now? Well, I remember a few articles last year about a massive glut of vehicles at dealers that just weren't selling. Manufacturers were making a ton of them and they weren't selling. This was causing some market distortions until the hurricane came in and made a lot of them insurance write-offs. But why would GM (and other manufacturers) be making lots of cars that weren't selling?

The government fuel economy standards set a target for MPG ratings across the entire fleet of vehicles.

If customers are buying big trucks, with low MPG, GM has to make a lot of sedans with high MPG to keep the average in compliance. Even if the sedans don't sell. Bonus points for making electric vehicles, which really pull down the fleet average.

Why would GM suddenly stop manufacturing sedans that they were having trouble selling?

Trump is changing the fuel economy regulations. In particular, he's freezing fuel economy standards at 2020. That means car manufacturers can keep their current models and mix if they want to, while taking the huge future increases in fuel economy mandated by the EPA under Obama off the table. This is more important than it seems, because there is a law of diminishing returns at work -- we've already got all the easy fuel economy gains to be had, and each additional gain comes at a higher and higher cost -- in effort, in lighter cars, in cars that don't perform as well, in cars that are less safe for passengers. Electric cars are a way around some of that, but they come with their own flaws. By removing future mandates that were effectively impossible to meet while making cars people wanted to buy, Trump allows the manufacturers to alter their future plans.

Is this good or bad for the economy? Obviously, it's bad for the specific people being laid off, and the community where factories are closing.

But for the economy as a whole, it's good. Why?

GM is no longer making cars people don't want.

They might become profitable (or more profitable, if they are already). They might increase production of cars (well, trucks) people do want. Different factories and locations, perhaps, but still new jobs. The people they let go will have some difficulty, but will likely find new jobs doing things people want more. Some of them may be with GM, making different vehicles. Some of them may not. I'm neither attacking nor defending GM for how they are handling this change. I'm just addressing the larger economic effects.

Fewer cars people don't want is a win.

Think Progress

According to Liptak, Stevens “helped persuade Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who was in the majority, to ask for ‘some important changes’ to Justice Scalia’s opinion.”

The result was a passage providing that Heller should not “be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

First the factual aspect. Assuming it's accurate, it confirms something the gun rights community has long suspected. (I don't particularly doubt the accuracy of the claim, although Stevens may be overstating his own role as as persuasive force...)

Think Progress

The upshot of Stevens’ highly unusual revelation — justices, even retired justices, rarely disclose internal Court deliberations — is that there are probably no longer five votes on the Supreme Court who support this language in Heller. A wide range of firearm restrictions intended to keep firearms out of the hands of especially dangerous individuals or to keep them out of “sensitive places such as schools” could soon fall.

Now the facts.

We don't know where the current court sits on gun rights. Roberts has demonstrated squishy behavior before. Kennedy was replaced with Kavanaugh, presumably a solid 2nd Amendment vote, but Trump's first pick Gorsuch replaced Scalia (solid pro-gun vote) with a presumably solid pro-gun vote. Neither Kavanaugh nor Gorsuch have really been tested yet and Roberts is untrustworthy. We're probably better off with Kennedy replaced. But we need to win one more to feel secure, and even then, we can't count on the new Justices until we see how they vote.

Since Stevens is clearly trying to stoke panic here, let me rebut.

Gun free zone laws around schools have stopped precisely zero school shootings. As with other places declared gun free, criminals view them as soft targets. The only people deterred from carrying in such zones are the honest, law-abiding people who you would want to have a gun in case of such an attack.

"Laws intended to keep firearms out of the hands of especially dangerous individuals" has a couple possible meanings. Do they mean felons? Most felons will be able to get a gun as easily as they can get drugs, ie, illegally. Challenges to the core of felon-in-possession laws seem unlikely in the near future, though we will likely see nibbles around the edges for people acting in self-defense, whose crimes were not violent in nature, and who have been rehabilitated into society. Do they mean people like the Parkland shooter, who should have been on the naughty list but was not due to law enforcement failures? Law enforcement will have failures no matter what laws you pass. Do they mean people like the man who died at the hands of police in Maryland recently? How many innocent people need to die because one of their in-laws didn't like them owning a gun?

CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, CBS, and NBC all use the same picture of an illegal alien invader being repelled by border protection forces. It's a woman and her two children, both barefoot, one in diapers. It's weaponized empathy, and it doesn't represent the actual video of the event fairly (as most of the illegal aliens were military-age, able-bodied males) but the simple fact that they all used the same photo speaks volumes about the manipulative nature of the media. And it was almost certainly staged.

Remember, the caravan is not an invasion:

It would be accurate to call Russia's use of weapons to stop Ukrainian ships an act of war. However, it would be equally accurate to call it a provocation. I remember, some time ago, reading an article that pointed out that new Presidents are frequently tested by the less pleasant international actors shortly after taking office. Trump has been in office two years, and delivered some remarkable results by hard bargaining. Now he's lost the House in his recent election, and the international bad actors are wondering if Trump was bluffing and whether they should risk calling it.

The caravan trying to overrun our southern border is the same deal. Sure, it started out as an attempt at weaponizing empathy for the 2016 campaign. Now, it's become an effort to test Trump's resolve and determination. Will he offer a new bargain or double down? So far he seems to be doubling down on the caravan, which is probably the right move.

Is it the right move in the Ukraine?

I don't know. It depends on what the Russians do. I suspect even the Russians don't know what they are going to do.

PJMedia

So Democrats don't want a border wall and will insist on protections for the special counsel. For his part, Trump has hinted that he will shut down the government if he doesn't get funding for his wall, and may veto a spending bill that contains protections for Mueller.

This is a recipe for a shutdown that could last well into January.

Please don't throw me into that briar patch...

Free Beacon

The National Institutes of Health is spending over $600,000 to use GPS tracking on transgender women of color in New York City.

The study, being conducted by New York University, is tracking transwomen on and off for two years to "know the travel patterns" of transwomen to mobilize HIV prevention efforts.

This is not actual research. At best, it is marketing research -- the sort of thing conducted by companies that want to find out where to put ads, except they don't usually use GPS trackers or government funds to do it. At worst, it is a blatant subsidy for the people conducting the study. $600K is probably one "Woman's Studies" professor's salary, plus a few grad students, for two years. The grad students don't actually get paid, the money goes to the school for "tuition".

The real question is why a Trump administration is funding this sort of thing.

John Lott writing in the Chicago Tribune

America doesn’t lead the world in mass public shootings. We’re not even close. Just last month, a school shooting in Crimea, Russia, claimed 20 lives and wounded 65 others. But Americans usually don’t hear about such events.

Over the course of 18 years, from 1998 to 2015, our list contains 2,354 attacks and at least 4,880 shooters outside the United States and 53 attacks and 57 shooters within this country. By our count, the U.S. makes up 1.49 percent of the murders worldwide, 2.20 percent of the attacks, and less than 1.15 percent of the mass public shooters. All these are much less than America’s 4.6 percent share of the world population.

Of the 97 countries where we identified mass public shootings, the U.S. ranks 64th per capita in its rate of attacks and 65th in fatalities. Major European countries, such as Norway, Finland, France, Switzerland and Russia, all have at least 25 percent higher per capita murder rates from mass public shootings.

I know these things, because I follow Lott's research and I've seen this before. But it gets so little attention that each time it comes up, it surprises me again.

Conservative Treehouse

In a highly coordinated effort between caravan organizers and media allies, hundreds of economic migrants from central America rushed the San Ysidro port of entry in San Diego today attempting to gain entry. Video on social media (shared below) shows hundreds of the migrants attempting to bypass U.S. border protections.

Trump has authorized the military to use lethal force if necessary. That is entirely appropriate. These people are not here to apply for asylum. They are here to enter illegally and by force. They should be met with force.

Sara Carter

Former FBI Director James Comey announced he would “resist” the Republican subpoena for him to appear in a closed-door hearing, claiming they would “selectively leak” and “distort” his testimony.

Taking to Twitter on Thanksgiving Day, Comey wrote, “Happy Thanksgiving. Got a subpoena from House Republicans. I’m still happy to sit in the light and answer all questions. But I will resist a “closed door” thing because I’ve seen enough of their selective leaking and distortion. Let’s have a hearing and invite everyone to see.”

Of course he will "resist". He's guilty. In a private hearing he can't refuse to answer on the basis of classified information. In a public hearing he gets fake transparency and can refuse to answer anything at all.

And he knows he only needs to resist long enough for the Democrats to take over.

TaxProf has the details. It's about "medical" marijuana advocacy by tax exempt organizations this time. It does strike me as problematic, but less so than the tea party targeting, not least because presidential involvement seems unlikely. Trump never really seemed to have a bee in his bonnet on that issue (well, as far I as knew anyway). Sessions, on the other hand, might have, and now that he's on his way out, this would be a good time for opponents to leak the details so anything he was pushing could be reversed.

The View From North Central Idaho

“Do you trust those in government, now and forever in the future, to not take your life, liberty, or property through the force of government?”

If the answer to that question is “no,” the gun control debate is over.

Joe is famous for his "Just One Question". This isn't his question, but if you could feed the gun control folks enough truth serum to admit it and think it through, this one works pretty well.

Free Beacon

Since the 2016 presidential election, crowdfunding sites have become a top fundraising destination for progressive activists forming the so-called resistance to President Donald Trump.

Online platforms such as CrowdJustice, GoFundMe, and CrowdPAC, among others, have drawn in millions for political activism and progressive causes. Funds have been raised for purposes as varied as supporting the federal bureaucrat who lost her job for flipping off Trump's motorcade to covering the security costs for Christine Blasey Ford, and even underwriting Stormy Daniels's legal bills.

Meanwhile, crowdfunding campaigns on the right are kicked off platforms and denied financial services based solely on membership in a disfavored poltiical party.

Free Beacon

These campaigns have garnered extensive media attention, especially as progressives have been eager to portray a growing citizenry rising in opposition to the president.

Such campaigns, however, have often proven to be anything but organic. In most cases, they are either established by or linked to individuals with longstanding ties to the progressive movement.

For instance, the GoFundMe campaign that raised nearly $210,000 for Blasey Ford's security costs during the Kavanaugh confirmation battle was established by Heidi Li Feldman, a Georgetown Law professor and self-described "philosopher." Feldman, who "is politically active in the effort to resist Donald Trump and those who enable him," is a left-leaning academic specializing in tort and civil rights law. She is a noted speaker on the progressive lecture circuit, traveling the country discussing gun control and female enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton, according to the Women's Media Center.

So linked to Hillary, check.

Free Beacon

"But these heroes need our support. We don’t have private jets or big money donors. Instead, we have a people-powered movement to save our democracy," Barkan wrote on the campaign's page. "Chip in to support our campaign that has brought hundreds of heroes to Washington D.C. to protest the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. Together we can save our democracy."

Barkan, who suffers from ALS, captured widespread attention last year for placing his opposition to the GOP's tax cut package and efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act within the context of his own health struggles. A former lawyer and activist with CPD, himself, Barkan was a top-dollar fundraiser and surrogate for Democratic candidates this election cycle.

So he can already fundraise effectively, despite claiming otherwise on his gofundme. Hillary certainly has private jets and big money donors. Barkan certainly has the latter, even if he isn't personally on the private jet level. And there's always George Soros, Bill Gates, and so on.

Electroverse

Zharkova was one of the few that correctly predicted solar cycle 24 would be weaker than cycle 23 — only 2 out of 150 models predicted this.

Her models have run at a 93% accuracy and her findings suggest a Super Grand Solar Minimum is on the cards beginning 2020 and running for 350-400 years.

The last time we had a little ice age only two magnetic fields of the sun went out of phase.

This time, all four magnetic fields are going out of phase.

It's time to stop worrying about global warming, and time to start worrying about global cooling. The problem with climate scientists is that they can't successfully predict temperatures in the future. This scientist, a solar physicist, has demonstrated the ability to predict the sun's behavior, and the tie in to the historical Maunder Minimum is scary.

Warming is easy to deal with. It helps plants grow and gives us more energy. Cooling is a much bigger challenge.

UPDATE: A reader points to this article as refutation. My comments below the fold.

It seems retiring rooster Trey Gowdy has opened a Congressional investigation into Ivanka's use of personal email. He's giving entirely unnecessary bipartisan cover to Democrats in doing this, and he's doing it safely in the lame duck session when he plans to retire, so at literally no political cost.

I haven't looked into the details of this, and unless something big changes, I don't really plan to. My understanding is that Ivanka's use of personal email did not include classified material or a private server, did not last for an extended period of time (and in fact begin during the transition period when an official email might not be available), was cured for FOIA purposes by sending any relevant emails to her eventual official email, and, of course, Ivanka was not occupying a position such as SecState or communicating with the current President (as this was, again, during the transition period).

There's just no "there" there in this scandal. It's purely there as political cover for Hillary being ordered by a judge to personally answer questions about her own private server... because when she was asked those questions previously, she lied, and the judge is being nice and giving her an opportunity to try again before charging her with perjury. Or the last bit is how I read the situation anyway.

And why are the clintons so eager to distract attention from Hillary's email scandal? Because prosecutor John Huber has been asked to testify about his investigation into the Clinton Foundation on December 5th. We're going to see a lot of battlespace preparation in the next two weeks.

Now, the analysis at the link suggests that if Huber can testify about this, he can't actually be planning to indict anyone about it. That's a troubling angle. But even if no indictment results, it's likely to be embarrassing, and Clinton wants to run in 2020. So there will be attempts at distraction.

Gowdy should be ashamed of himself for this, but as a retiring politician, he has no shame.

John Lott quoting San Diego Tribune

The crude exchange played out hundreds of times on L.A.’s skid row during the 2016 election cycle and again this year, prosecutors said Tuesday as they announced criminal charges against nine people accused in a fraud scheme.

Using cash and cigarettes as lures, the defendants approached homeless people on skid row and asked them to forge signatures on state ballot measure petitions and voter registration forms, the district attorney’s office said. The defendants — some of whom were scheduled to be arraigned Tuesday — face several criminal charges, including circulating a petition with fake names, voter fraud and registering a fictitious person. . . .

Nine people have been charged with felonies. There were hundreds of solicitations covering both 2018 and 2016.

Free Beacon

The left's largest network of wealthy donors tapped an individual for a discussion on "expanding the electorate" at its fall investment conference from a group that was caught submitting fraudulent voter registration forms—including registering dead people to vote—and saw one of its employees go to prison for the crime.

"The 2018 elections presented organizations and communities with an opportunity to truly transform and expand the electorate and elect the next generation of our country's progressive leadership," the agenda says of the discussion. "The state of American politics provided an environment conducive to mobilizing a new coalition of voters, inspiring them to vote, and persuading them that by investing their energy and resources into civic participation they can create positive change."

If the people won't vote the way you want to them, you can always replace the people with a new People.

Sara Carter

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) told Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo yesterday that he wishes to see a “fourth bucket” of emails declassified, saying it would reveal evidence that the Department of Justice and FBI withheld information from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).

Nunes said the first of three “buckets” were Russia-related documents which President Trump–after calling for their release–had to backtrack on after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein intervened and suggested the Inspector General review them first.

“The new fourth bucket that we’re asking to be declassified now is — for months we have been reviewing emails between FBI, and DOJ, and others that clearly show that they knew about information that should have been presented to the FISA court,” he said. “So it is real evidence that people within the FBI withheld evidence from the FISA court.”

The more information we can get into the public domain about this the better.

The fact that they waited to issue these subpoenas until after they lost the election is an indication that they weren't taking them seriously in the first place.

Comey demanded there be a public hearing -- which would of course prevent him for talking about anything related to classified information, a shield he could and would hide everything behind.

The dates are November 29th and December 5th.

It's interesting that he waited until Whitaker was in place to respond to Mueller's Russian Collusion questions.

Since we don't know what was asked or answered, I can only hope (and trust) that the President's attorneys double and triple checked every answer to avoid any possible hint at a process crime.

How Mueller writes his report now that the Democrats are in power is going to depend on how honest he is. If he's a Democrat operative, he'll write something to justify impeachment even if it's flimsy. The Dems know it won't pass the Senate, they just want the vote for political reasons to encourage turnout. If he's just interested in protecting the FBI and DOJ as institutions, he'll write something bland and keep a few threads open, trusting that the Dem House won't press the issue.

The Australian diplomat who spoke to George Papadopoulus in a wine bar about Russians and may or may not have spoken about emails turns out to be a former Australian Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Australian counterpart to the CIA reports directly to that position.

Gee, that doesn't sound like a setup at all, does it?

What he's really doing is threatening to split the vote in Ohio, thus handing the state to the Democrats and blocking a Republican path to victory (most of which need Ohio). Similar to how Ross Perot split the vote for Bush when he was running for re-election against... hmm...who was it that time... oh, right... William Clinton.

Gosh, it's funny how these coincidences work.

I think VodkaPundit just named the upcoming generation.

And now, I have a belated answer: 12 billion rounds of ammunition sold in the United States each year. The chart does not indicate how many of each type, but does list the most popular types (including handy color-coding by state).

I had originally asked about it to refute a claim by Dianne Feinstein that "assault weapons" were not "in common use" (the term from the Heller decision). One way to refute that claim is to show usage by ammunition type. So let's look at the ammunition types by rank.

1. 9mm: Most popular in handguns, but almost all handguns designed for this round were designed to take advantage of its smaller size to increase the magazine capacity. As such, almost all handguns that use this cartridge can accept magazines over 10 rounds, which qualified them as an "assault weapon" if they had other cosmetic design features. Most popular in 30+ states.


2. 223/5.56mm: Most popular in the AR-15 rifle, this is the quintessential "assault weapon" that gives Feinstein nightmares. Oddly enough, this round is the most popular in California, and a total of 7 states.


3. 12 Gauge: your basic hunting or home defense shotgun. Doesn't imply an assault weapon. This is the most popular round in only three states, which may suggests


4. .22lr: Your classic target shooting or plinking round. Doesn't imply an assault weapon, mostly because no one even tries to pack more than 12 or so into a magazine. There's almost no point. Oddly, this is the most popular round in only one state. Well, possibly also Hawaii. Restrictions may play a role here too.


5. 300 Win Mag: Only one state again, and it's Alaska. Apparently shooting at anything in Alaska with anything less powerful is futile.

So. I defy even Feinstein to claim that 12 billion rounds is not common use. We don't know the exact distribution, but we know the far and away favorite ammunition type is the 9mm, which is practically defined by its large magazine capacity. The next most popular is the 223, which is also defined by its large magazine capacity and use in the AR-15.

That's what common use looks like.