6 thoughts on “News/Politics 8-3-18

  1. On TV, you don’t have to know a person’s affiliation.
    If he’s anti Trump, he never says “Trump”, he says “this president”. When you hear that, you already know what’s coming next.


  2. Since we already know that numerous Obama admin officials did govt work on personal email, (Holder, Lynch, Jackson at the EPA, Hillary at State, even Obama himself) why would anyone think Comey didn’t too? And why would the FBI be so uninterested in preserving them, which is required by law?

    Unless of course, you’re destroying evidence, or standing by while someone else does…….

    Sometimes, it really is a conspiracy…..


    “The Department of Justice is refusing to preserve work-related emails on former FBI Director James Comey’s private account.
    The Justice Department Inspector General disclosed that Comey used a personal email account to conduct agency business.
    The Justice Department has refused to turn over government records on Comey’s personal account, which The Daily Caller News Foundation and Judicial Watch requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
    The Department of Justice has refused to take any steps to preserve work-related emails former FBI Director James Comey had on a personal account that The Daily Caller News Foundation and Judicial Watch requested under the Freedom of Information Act, the conservative watchdog will file in court Friday.

    “There is nothing but complete silence about why the FBI has failed to take steps to preserve records responsive to DCNF’s request,” Judicial Watch attorney Michael Bekesha will write in the filing before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

    Judicial Watch and TheDCNF filed a joint lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act on April 25 seeking records, including emails, Comey produced regarding meetings and conversations he had with then-President Barack Obama, then-Vice President Joe Biden and a variety of other political figures.

    Following the Justice Department Inspector General’s June 2018 report, which disclosed that Comey used a personal Gmail account for official FBI business, both groups sought a preservation order to assure no records related to their FOIA requests were lost or destroyed.

    Both groups requested U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly order the Justice Department to preserve all of Comey’s personal emails related to the two requests on July 27.

    The same day, Kollar-Kotelly took the unusual step of demanding an expedited reply from the Justice Department, ordering that the agency respond to the court by Aug. 1 and to respond to Judicial Watch and TheDCNF by Aug. 3.”

    Which is today……


  3. An update on an old story.

    Due to Judicial Watch’s efforts, we finally get a look at some of the truth behind RU-486. And more on it’s effects and the politics behind making it more easily available is coming as well…..


    “A controversial abortion drug rushed through the government’s approval process by the Clinton administration has killed nearly two dozen women and produced serious adverse effects in thousands of others, according to records obtained by Judicial Watch. Nearly 100 women who took the drug (Mifeprex) had ectopic pregnancies, the records show, and hundreds of others required blood transfusions and hospitalization. Judicial Watch has investigated the government’s handling of Mifeprex, also known as RU-486, since the Clinton administration aggressively shoved the abortion pill through the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval process in an effort to appease radical pro-abortion activists.

    Back in 2006 Judicial Watch published a special report based on thousands of pages of FDA and National Archives documents showing the Clinton administration’s aggressive drive to thrust the abortion pill to the market in the United States despite warnings of its hazards. Judicial Watch uncovered that the abortion pill was fast-tracked under the “Accelerated Approval of New Drugs for Serious or Life-threatening Illnesses,” a measure that was adopted for use in rare cases to encourage the manufacture and importation of drugs designed to treat life-threatening diseases such as cancer or heart disease. Over the years physicians have warned of Mifeprex’s dangers and some have called for banning it. In a piece published by a mainstream newspaper more than a decade ago, an obstetrician warns that Mifeprex is deadly and explains that it obtained government approval because five standard procedural and scientific requirements to prove safety and effectiveness were circumvented to get it onto the market quickly.

    In 2016 the FDA caved in to calls from liberals to make Mifeprex easier and cheaper to obtain and last year a powerful leftist group sued the federal government to make the drug more widely available. The change by the government two years ago increased the use of Mifeprex from 49 days of gestation to 70, slashed the recommended dose and cut the number of doctor visits. To support the expansion of the drug’s availability, the civil rights group suing the FDA cites the agency’s public assessment of Mifeprex, saying that the abortion pill “has been increasingly used as its efficacy and safety have become well-established by both research and experience, and serious complications have proven to be extremely rare.” The records obtained from Judicial Watch tell a different story.

    In the coming months Judicial Watch expects to receive thousands of pages of individual Adverse Event Reports from the FDA involving Mifeprex, but the initial summary figures provided by the agency this month under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) are disturbing enough. Once the government furnishes all the files, doctors from a coalition of pro-life groups collaborating with Judicial Watch will dissect the individual reports to supply precise medical assessments of the abortion drug’s dangers. Keeping with its mission of educating the public, Judicial Watch will issue reports and articles on the findings. The data may not tell the whole story because the government only includes cases that have been “reported,” acknowledging that some adverse effects or even deaths may not be disclosed to the government. In fact, a congressional audit published earlier this year on the FDA’s monitoring of Mifeprex acknowledges that “adverse events may be underreported and that the FDA may only be aware of a fraction of them.”


  4. Here’s a couple of interesting, and I think related, pieces on race and Trump supporters. A new study reveals that ideological errors by prior studies on the matter caused distorted results that showed what they wanted, and not necessarily what was true.


    “A new study finds that much of the research conducted on President Trump’s voters is marred by prejudicial designs, distorted data, and outright misrepresentation of Trump’s words.

    Led by Musa al-Gharbi, a Columbia University sociologist, “On Social Research in the Age of Trump” analyzes three case studies of academic research on Trump to illustrate the various ways that academics have misrepresented the president and his voter base to the public.

    One example of this phenomena can be seen in the April 2017 Washington Post article “Racism motivated Trump voters more than authoritarianism,” by Thomas Wood, who teaches political science classes at Ohio State University.

    While Wood cites survey data to claim that Trump voters were especially motivated by racism, a closer analysis by al-Gharbi reveals that Wood’s arguments about Trump voters can’t be substantiated from the data cited in the article.

    “According to Wood’s own data, whites who voted for Trump are perhaps less racist than those who voted for Romney,” al-Gharbi explains, adding that “not only were they less authoritarian than Romney voters, but less racist too!”

    “Unfortunately, Wood declined to consider how Trump voters differed from Romney voters…instead focusing on the gap between Democrats and Republicans in 2016, in the service of a conclusion his data do not support,” he adds.

    This uncharitable misrepresentation of data is one of many ways that Trump voters are marred by researchers, al-Gharbi says, asserting that the “evidence suggests that the role of race has been widely overblown and misunderstood with respect to Trump’s victory.”

    In an interview with Campus Reform, al-Gharbi admitted that he was motivated to research this topic “in part to help Trump’s opposition do better next round.”

    “But I also take umbrage at the villainization of Trump supporters,” he added, noting that he “grew up in a conservative, religious, military community in Arizona along the United States and Mexico Border.”

    “Trump voters aren’t some mysterious exotic demonic force for me. They are my family, childhood friends, former co-workers, etc,” he said. “Given this background, I strongly suspected that the cartoonish version of these voters [promulgated by academics in the media] was likely not going to be well-supported by any kind of more even-handed analysis of the available data.”

    Still, while al-Gharbi has found that many scholars misrepresent Trump’s voter base, he doesn’t ascribe malice to their intentions. Instead, he worries that even academics who strive to be impartial can fall into a “confirmation bias” trap, unintentionally allowing their personal biases to influence research results, oftentimes without realizing it. ”

    But it appears the matter may be moot anyway because black voters aren’t buying it.


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.