21 thoughts on “News/Politics 6-21-17

  1. There is much teeth gnashing on the left this morning. As the last link yesterday showed, they feel they lost because they were too civil.

    🙄

    For those keeping score of the special election tallies, that’s 5 wins for Trump and R’s, O for Dems.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republican-handel-thanks-trump-after-winning-georgia-race/ar-BBCW1Pb?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=U452DHP

    “Republican Karen Handel won a nationally watched congressional election Tuesday in Georgia, and she thanked President Donald Trump after she avoided an upset that would have rocked Washington ahead of the 2018 midterm elections.

    Incomplete returns show Handel, a former Georgia secretary of state, winning almost 53 percent of the vote over Democrat Jon Ossoff, who won just over 47 percent in Georgia’s 6th Congressional District.

    “A special thanks to the president of the United States of America,” she said late Tuesday night as her supporters chanted, “Trump! Trump! Trump!”

    It was Handel’s most public embrace of the man whose tenuous standing in this well-educated, suburban enclave made a previously safe Republican district close in the first place.

    Handel’s margin allows Republicans a sigh of relief after what’s being recognized as the most expensive House race in U.S history, with a price tag that may exceed $50 million.”
    ———————

    Democrats spent a ton of money, mostly from outside the state, and still lost.

    Like

  2. Re: The Georgia election.
    No amount of money can buy an election when people have already decided what they wanted. I could have predicted the outcome before a nickel was spent.
    People don’t much like Trump, but they’re fed up with Obama, the Clintons, Pelosi & Company.

    Liked by 7 people

  3. Over on Twitter we’re getting lectures about not being sore winners–whether we care or not.

    The people are so busy walking in darkness–both sides–they can’t recognize their absurdity. 😦

    Liked by 3 people

  4. With as much as got spent on the election, can you imagine how many political ads we have had lately? It may have been worse than the presidential election ads. Thankful, let me say that with enthusiasm, THANKFUL it is over (and with an excellent outcom).

    I think the Dem opponent lives in my district although he was running in the other district. That was a big turnoff to voters, that he did not live in the district he wanted to represent. He was living with his girlfriend, but got negative press for his lack of commitment so they got engaged. That probably makes it one of the most expensive engagements in history, LOL. With his political loss, I wonder if they will continue their engagement. It’s a story for National Inquirer or People magazine.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Looks like they figured out they got nothing. Why else would they block witnesses, unless they aren’t really concerned with the truth. But it still won’t stop them from crying about Russia.

    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/democrats-block-witnesses-testifying-house-intel-probe/

    “House Democrats are continuing to block testimony from about a dozen witnesses who sought to appear before the intelligence oversight panel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election.

    Congressional officials said one of the key witnesses, former informal adviser to the Trump campaign Carter Page, was scheduled to testify at a closed hearing of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

    But Democrats on the committee blocked the testimony, asserting they needed more time to prepare.

    “He’s the guy that many Democrats have been pointing to as the supposed mastermind and you would think they were interested hearing his story,” said one Capitol Hill official.

    Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.), the committee’s Democratic leader, did not respond to emails seeking comment on the blocked testimony.

    Schiff has asserted in the past that evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign is “more than circumstantial,” contrary to other intelligence and congressional oversight members who have said there is no evidence.

    On Sunday, Schiff appeared to back off his earlier comments somewhat. Pressed on ABC News to explain the nature of the evidence of collusion, the lawmaker said: “Well, I think there is evidence. I can’t go into the particulars of our closed investigation. But I also think there is also evidence of obstruction. But in both cases, I would say, whether there is some evidence doesn’t mean there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

    Like

  6. And they may have to deal with some unintended consequences in their quest to get Trump. Nothing would make me happier.

    http://nypost.com/2017/06/20/next-up-a-special-counsel-to-probe-team-obamas-obstruction-of-justice/

    “By using fired FBI Director James Comey to attack the new Republican administration, Democrats have opened up a legal can of worms for the Obama administration.

    Under sworn questioning, Comey has veered off the topic of President Trump and Russia and revealed several damning incidents in which his predecessor’s administration politically interfered in the Hillary Clinton email investigation. And now the Senate will investigate Team Obama for obstruction of justice.

    Specifically, the Senate Judiciary Committee announced last week it will hold hearings to “examine then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s involvement in the Clinton email server investigation.”

    The findings of the powerful panel, which has oversight of the Justice Department and FBI, could lead to a separate criminal investigation and the naming of another special counsel — exactly what Trump needs to distract attention from his growing legal woes.

    What Lynch did reeks of obstruction. According to Comey, his ex-boss:

     Ordered him to mislead the public about the criminal investigation of Clinton by calling it a “matter” rather than an investigation. (He complied with her wish, even though it made him feel “queasy.”)

    Refused to recuse herself from the case after Comey confronted her about a secret June 2016 meeting she had with former President Bill Clinton — five days before his wife was scheduled to be interviewed by the FBI. (Hillary was cleared three days later.)

    There are also concerns, raised by a New York Times report, that Lynch privately assured the Clinton campaign she would keep FBI agents in check and wouldn’t let their investigation “go too far,” according to a message the FBI intercepted involving then-Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.”

    Like

  7. Janice: “He was living with his girlfriend, but got negative press for his lack of commitment so they got engaged. That probably makes it one of the most expensive engagements in history, LOL”

    Hilarious.

    Liked by 4 people

  8. Why is someone who lives outside a district allowed to run in it? Do they have to have some time in the district? This makes no sense to me.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. I saw this on FB and thinks it sums it up. This is from the other side. I have wondered about this.

    “For all of my Progressive Activist friends and acquaintances from outside of Atlanta who put so much faith in the 6th District election, please be aware of the following:
    **Ossoff won by the same percentage that he won in the primary, even though there were ooddles more voters this time. It wasn’t turnout, Folks, it was pure numbers. So, please don’t blame people for not turning out–everyone who was going to turnout did. More money, phone calls, and door knocks from you made you feel better, but it actually drove people nuts in the 6th. In fact, it may have even depressed turnout per some reports.
    **Going back to ancient history–that is early January this year–Ossoff was not selected by anyone in the 6th, or even Georgia. He was selected by Progressive Activists in a viral campaign directed from environs way away from the lousy traffic, mega churches, and changing demographics of the 6th. At the end of the day, once someone is elected, they have to be able to legislate for the people in their district. While you might have felt that Ossoff was the “right candidate,” it was really tough to get behind someone who a friend of mine from the 6th said that “I wouldn’t hire him to be an analyst for my company.” In short, besides the key attributes of being a Democrat and being extremely earnest (I saw him speak 3 times and gave real money to his campaign), he did not generate any degree of confidence in his ability to actually get things done. Of course, there was no question that he would work very hard if he won, but nonetheless, at the end of the day, people do expect (but certainly rarely get), good governance. It was just too much of a stretch for many folks to believe this neophyte would be able to do much to help them in their daily lives.
    ***Would a more experienced candidate have had a better shot? Maybe, but probably not: a more experienced candidate would have had a harder time getting noticed early on (see other close races that weren’t on the radar until much too late). Also, and this is very important, the Democratic party in Georgia has been a moribund, hierarchical, and-as Professor Hubby would say “couldn’t find their ass with a flashlight”–organization. They exist to create email lists, and to take money from the increasing number of Democratic leaning Georgians who are hoping for more progressive leadership in our state. THEY HAVE NO CANDIDATES. We will continue to “miss it by that much” because grifters have been running the party for years. Until more people step up to participate, the GOP will keep its stronghold on our state at all levels. Indeed, when I showed up to the Democratic Party meeting in my county earlier this year, the leader said “nice to see all of you new folks, however, just recognize that we all worked hard to get to our positions, and you need to wait your turn.” Needless to say, I moved on because it was a waste of my time to sweep floors for these folks when I have a Rolodex that is knee deep and management skills that could be deployed to make the organization better.
    ****Now the good news: things ARE changing. In know people who have never before been politically active who have given dozens of hours to the Ossoff campaign. A young Democratic Party canvasser came to our house a few weeks ago, and told M that the state party didn’t want to make any changes, but the grass roots is disrupting the long held status quo. Change is hard, but it is inevitable. Innovation only happens when people realize there is a “dis-ease,” and that is undoubtedly happening. So, my Progressive Activist friends and acquaintances, trust that we Dumb F Southerners know what we’re doing, and although we will probably keep letting you down for the near future, please trust that “the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice.”

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Here’s a tangential point from Michelle’s 3:12 link. In trying to draw parallels between Trump and Moses (!) the author says Moses “had a Midian wife, whom he divorced”. He supports this statement by citing Exodus 18:2, which says that Moses had sent Zipporah and their children to his father-in-law, Jethro.

    Has anyone ever heard of this interpreted as divorce before? I always figured that it was for his family’s safety, and that it was mentioned in 18:2 only to provide context for Jethro bringing them back to Moses in 18:5. At the end of the chapter Jethro and Moses say good-bye and Jethro returns home. No mention of Zipporah going back with him.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. I vaguely recall this when it happened because of the hysteria about day-cares that followed. What a miscarriage of justice.

    https://theintercept.com/2017/06/20/texas-couple-exonerated-25-years-after-being-convicted-of-lurid-crimes-that-never-happened/

    “The exoneration is the first for the nascent conviction integrity unit of the Travis County District Attorney’s Office under the new DA, Margaret Moore. Court documents filed Tuesday announced that there is “no credible evidence” against the Kellers. Moore said she personally reviewed the case and believes exoneration “to be a just outcome.”

    Fran and Dan Keller were each sentenced to 48 years in prison for the alleged sexual assault of a 3-year-old girl who was an occasional drop-in at their home daycare center on the rural outskirts of Austin. The child initially accused Dan of spanking her “like daddy” used to, but under intense and repeated questioning by her mother and a therapist, the story morphed to include claims of rape and orgies involving children. From there, the number of children alleging abuse increased and the accusations grew even more lurid and confounding: The Kellers had sacrificed babies; they held ceremonies in a local graveyard; they put blood in the children’s Kool-Aid; Fran cut off the arm of a gorilla in a local park; they flew the children to Mexico to be sexually assaulted by military officials.

    When I began reinvestigating the case in 2008 for the Austin Chronicle, I was stunned to learn that police and prosecutors who had worked the case back in the early ’90s still believed some of the most outrageous allegations leveled against the Kellers. The Austin Police Department refused to release its investigative report on the case, forcing the Chronicle to take the agency to court. We ultimately won the right to full, unredacted access.

    After reading the report, it was not hard to understand why the department had fought to keep it secret. It was an ALL-CAPS, run-on-sentence fever dream full of breathless accusations and absent any actual investigation that could prove or disprove the claims. On multiple occasions, the lead investigator took the girl who accused the Kellers to lunch at McDonald’s before setting out for drives in the neighborhood where she would point out locations: Yes, she had been abused there; yes, she recognized the cemetery where the Kellers had killed and buried babies; yes, many of the residents of the quiet neighborhood were in on the hi-jinx. Not once did investigators question the child’s statements.

    My reinvestigation of the Keller case turned up evidence that would ultimately lead to their release from prison. The only vaguely physical evidence that tied the couple to any wrongdoing was the testimony of a young emergency room doctor named Michael Mouw, who had examined the girl and concluded there was damage to her vaginal area that could be the result of sexual abuse. As it turned out, the doctor was wrong. Mouw told me that not long after the Kellers were convicted, he attended a medical conference where he learned that what he had interpreted as signs of abuse were nothing more than a normal variant of female genitalia.

    Mouw’s medical opinion had fundamentally changed, offering the Kellers an avenue to challenge their conviction. During a hearing in the summer of 2013, he unequivocally stated that there was no doubt that the child’s genitalia was normal and that he’d gotten it wrong when he examined her in 1991. He said that he tried to reach out to the Austin Police Department after he realized his error but was rebuffed by the detective, who was “convinced they were guilty.””
    ————————

    Like

  12. It takes lots of imagination to figure that Exodus 18 has anything to do with divorce.
    Jethro is called “Moses’ father in law” throughout. So? He must have been.
    I taught a SS lesson on Jethro once. called “Giving Good Advice” A difficult lesson because there wasn’t much to say abut it.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. AJ – That reminds me of the McMartin Preschool case, & other similar cases. Investigators did not know how to properly question children, & ended up putting ideas into their heads. Also, the children could tell what the investigators wanted to hear, & gave it to them. That seems like a kind of child abuse in itself.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. I read a book and a half last year about the preschool hoax (one was on memory and delved into that hoax and false memories at length; one was fully on the subject). I was offered a writing job (connected to the subject, and I’ll leave it at that), but I could not in good conscience take it, and though I was familiar with the subject ever since Harper’s covered it when I was in college, I did more reading then.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s