14 thoughts on “News/Politics 7-11-19

  1. Dueling narratives.


    “Alexander Acosta on Wednesday blamed a former Florida state prosecutor for mishandling the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein.

    Acosta said at a press conference that Barry Krischer intended to let Epstein off with no jail time despite allegations that he solicited sex from underage girls.

    Krischer, a Democrat, prosecuted a case against Rush Limbaugh. He is also the namesake of a YWCA humanitarian award.”

    “During a press conference Wednesday, Alexander Acosta, the secretary of labor and a former federal prosecutor in Miami, repeatedly blamed a former Florida state attorney for mishandling the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, a billionaire sex offender who has been accused of molesting dozens of underage girls.

    “Letting what the state attorney was ready to do go[ing] forward — would have been absolutely awful,” Acosta said Wednesday, while defending his decision to strike a plea deal with Epstein in 2008.

    Acosta was referring to Barry Krischer, a Democrat who served as state attorney in Palm Beach through 2008.

    Acosta said his prosecutors intervened in the state case after learning Epstein would be allowed to enter a plea agreement that would keep him out of jail and not require him to register as a sex offender. He said his office faced the difficult decision of either forcing Epstein to accept a guilty plea that would give him some jail time, or “roll the dice” by taking Epstein to trial.

    “Simply put, the Palm Beach State Attorney’s office was ready to let Epstein walk free, no jail time, nothing. Prosecutors in my former office found this to be completely unacceptable. And they became involved. Our office became involved,” Acosta said.”



    “Former Palm Beach Prosecutor: Acosta Is Rewriting History Of Epstein’s Plea Deal”

    “Former Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krischer has reacted to Sec. Acosta’s claim that, if not for his actions, Jeffrey Epstein would have walked free. Here’s Krischer’s full statement:”

    “It reads in part, “I can emphatically state that Mr. Acosta’s recollection of this matter is completely wrong.” After confirming that a grand jury only returned one indictment, he continues, “Subsequently, the U.S. Attorney’s Office produced a 53-page indictment that was abandoned after secret negotiations between Mr. Epstein’s lawyers and Mr. Acosta. The State’s Attorney’s Office was not a party to those meetings or negotiations, and definitely had no part in the federal Non-Prosecution Agreement the unusual confidentiality arrangement that kept everything hidden from the victims.””


  2. A victory for Trump.


    “Trump wins emoluments case in 4th Circuit Court of Appeals

    Big victory, but other cases are pending in other circuits, so stay tuned.”

    “President Trump prevailed Wednesday morning in a lawsuit claiming that profits from his businesses violate the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution.

    The case was brought by the attorneys general of Maryland and Washington D.C., who said that Trump properties, notably the Trump International Hotel in D.C., were siphoning business away from state-owned convention centers.

    The Foreign Emoluments Clause, directly relevant in this case, provides:

    No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

    The Domestic Emoluments Clause, less relevant in this case, provides:

    The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

    What these clauses mean is the subject of debate, but before reaching the merits, a court needs to decide whether the plaintiffs are entitled (i.e., have “standing”) to sue to enforce the Emoluments Clauses. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that State of Maryland and the District of Columbia had no standing. The Opinions are here and here. (One addresses claims against President Trump in his official capacity, the other addresses claims against him individually.)

    Maryland and D.C.’s argument was that foreign dignitaries were likely patronizing the Trump International Hotel in the hopes of currying favor with the President, giving the hotel a competitive advantage over similar venues—which was tantamount to profiting off the the presidency.

    The panel concluded that this theory of harm was too speculative and attenuated to confer standing on Maryland and D.C. The panel wrote:

    To begin, the District and Maryland’s theory of proprietary harm hinges on the conclusion that government customers are patronizing the Hotel because the Hotel distributes profits or dividends to the President, rather than due to any of the Hotel’s other characteristics. Such a conclusion, however, requires speculation into the subjective motives of independent actors who are not before the court, undermining a finding of causation.

    Even if government officials were patronizing the Hotel to curry the President’s favor, there is no reason to conclude that they would cease doing so were the President enjoined from receiving income from the Hotel. After all, the Hotel would still be publicly associated with the President, would still bear his name, and would still financially benefit members of his family. In short, the link between government officials’ patronage of the Hotel and the Hotel’s payment of profits or dividends to the President himself is simply too attenuated.

    No one thinks it is desirable for government officials to profit from their positions, but the theory of standing in this case deserved to be rejected. Indeed, the theory was so novel and weak as to make one think that the true purpose of the lawsuit was, in fact, discovery into the president’s finances.”


    Because that was their purpose.


  3. She wasn’t a victim, she just played one on TV.


    “Remember How Kavanaugh Accuser Christine Blasey Ford Had No Social Media Footprint? Here’s Why.”

    “When Christine Blasey Ford came forward to accuse then-U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of decades-old sexual assault, little was known about her; in fact, she had no social media footprint at all — an extreme oddity for modern times.

    But according to a new book set for release on Tuesday, penned by two prominent conservative politicos, Blasey Ford “completely scrubbed” her digital footprint weeks before sending the sexual assault allegation to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) in the form of a letter.

    Fox News contributor Mollie Hemingway and her co-author, Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network, suggest in “Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court” that this social media history scrubbing had been done to cover up Blasey Ford’s far-left politics and her expressed “antipathy” toward President Donald Trump, who tapped Kavanaugh for the position on the highest court.

    As reported by the Washington Examiner, the book outlines how Blasey Ford was portrayed by the media as “politically moderate,” even though “her acquaintances reported Ford’s profile on social media ‘had been notable for its extreme antipathy to President Trump.’”

    “Additionally, her political views ‘ran decidedly to the left and were at variance with most of her family’s,’ and Ford’s friends on Facebook said she ‘regularly expressed hostility’ toward the Trump administration, they said,” the Examiner noted, adding that Blasey Ford’s social media “was ‘completely scrubbed’ about the time Kavanaugh was tapped for the Supreme Court in early July 2018.””


    She was always just a prop.


  4. Pass the popcorn, this is getting good. 🙂


    “Ocasio-Cortez accuses Pelosi of ‘persistent singling out’ of women of color: It’s ‘outright disrespectful'”

    “Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) accused Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) of repeatedly singling out newly elected women of color in the House, saying that the veteran congresswoman’s criticism has become “outright disrespectful.”

    Ocasio-Cortez made the remarks in an interview with The Washington Post late Wednesday after a day of heightened tensions between Pelosi and House Democrats.

    “When these comments first started, I kind of thought that she was keeping the progressive flank at more of an arm’s distance in order to protect more moderate members, which I understood,” Ocasio-Cortez told the Post.

    “But the persistent singling out … it got to a point where it was just outright disrespectful … the explicit singling out of newly elected women of color,” she added.

    The remarks came hours after Pelosi, at a closed-door meeting of the caucus earlier Wednesday, admonished her party for openly attacking one another over policy disputes. Pelosi has consistently dismissed some of the policies floated by the more liberal members of the caucus, most recently using a New York Times interview over the weekend to question the influence of four outspoken freshmen known as “the squad” — Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Ocasio-Cortez.

    “All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world,” she said to The New York Times. “But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.””


  5. Some Russian submariners just saved the world, or so they say.


    “There are more details being revealed about the Russian submarine fire in Arctic waters that killed 14 of its crew, including several of the country’s top naval officials.

    Reports from their funeral indicate officials praised their actions, which resulted in staving off a planet-wide disaster.

    The 14 sailors who died when a fire erupted aboard a top-secret Russian nuclear submarine last week prevented a “planetary catastrophe,” a top naval officer said at their funeral, according to local outlets.

    The sailors died of smoke inhalation July 1 as they worked to stop the flames from spreading in the deep-water research submarine surveying the seafloor near the Arctic, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.

    “With their lives, [the 14 sailors] saved their comrades, saved the ship and averted a catastrophe of planetary scale,” Sergei Pavlov, an aide to the Russian navy’s commander, was quoted by local outlet Fontanka as saying at the private funeral on Saturday.

    Whatever happened, data collected from surrounding nations do not show an increase in radiation levels.

    Russian authorities had previously refused to say whether the country’s worst naval incident in more than a decade involved a nuclear-powered vessel. They have also refused to say what type of craft was involved, with the Kremlin calling the information “absolutely classified.” Neighboring Norway contacted Russia for more details though it said it hadn’t detected any increased radiation levels.

    Russia media is boldly making comparisons to the handling of this incident with the infamous and deadly Chernobyl nuclear disaster.”


  6. So…….. who took the perv Epstein’s money?

    Chucky did.


    “Sen. Chuck Schumer — who called on Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta to resign and said President Trump should “answer” for his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein — accepted thousands of dollars in donations from the alleged pedophile throughout the 1990s, The Post has learned.

    Federal Election Commission records show that Schumer received seven $1,000 donations from Epstein between 1992 and 1997, first as a US congressman from New York and then when he was vying to be the state’s senator in 1998, an election he won.

    Epstein — who was arrested Saturday and charged with sex trafficking and a related conspiracy count for allegedly sexually abusing a vast network of underage girls — also gave $10,000 to Victory in New York, a joint fundraising committee established by Schumer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

    Epstein gave an additional $5,000 to Win New York, a Schumer-associated joint committee that benefited the Liberal Party of New York state.

    Both of Epstein’s donations to the committees came in October 1998 — and look to have primarily benefited the DSCC and the Liberal Party of New York, as Epstein would have already met the $2,000 limit on donating individually to Schumer.

    At the time, donors could give $1,000 to a candidate per election — once in the primary and again in the general.

    That means Schumer and Schumer-linked entities received a combined $22,000.

    Schumer spokesman Angelo Roefaro responded, “While these campaign accounts closed about 20 years ago, and even then the campaign never controlled the two political action committees (PACs), Senator Schumer is donating an equal sum to anti-sex trafficking and anti-violence against women groups.”

    The top Senate Democrat previously donated $14,200 — the amount donated to his campaigns by accused sexual predator Harvey Weinstein — to several charities supporting women.”


  7. Study: Psychiatric Diagnoses Are ‘Scientifically Meaningless’ In Treating Mental Health


    “No two people are exactly alike. Therefore, attempting to classify each unique individual’s mental health issues into neat categories just doesn’t work. That’s the claim coming out of the United Kingdom that is sure to ruffle some psychologists’ feathers.

    More people are being diagnosed with mental illnesses than ever before. Multiple factors can be attributed to this rise; many people blame the popularity of social media and increased screen time, but it is also worth considering that in today’s day and age more people may be willing to admit they are having mental health issues in the first place. Whatever the reason, it is generally believed that a psychiatric diagnosis is the first step to recovery.

    That’s why a new study conducted at the University of Liverpool has raised eyebrows by concluding that psychiatric diagnoses are “scientifically meaningless,” and worthless as tools to accurately identify and address mental distress at an individual level.

    Researchers performed a detailed analysis on five of the most important chapters in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Heath Disorders (DSM). The DSM is considered the definitive guide for mental health professionals, and provides descriptions for all mental health problems and their symptoms. The five chapters analyzed were: bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, and trauma-related disorders.

    Researchers came to a number of troubling conclusions. First, the study’s authors assert that there is a significant amount of overlap in symptoms between disorder diagnoses, despite the fact that each diagnosis utilizes different decision rules. Additionally, these diagnoses completely ignore the role of trauma or other unique adverse events a person may encounter in their life.

    Perhaps most concerning of all, researchers say that these diagnoses tell us little to nothing about the individual patient and what type of treatments they will need. The authors ultimately conclude that this diagnostic labeling approach is “a disingenuous categorical system.””


  8. Witch hunt update.


    “DOJ Attorney Says Russian Government Had Nothing To Do With Troll Farms
    A newly released transcript reveals details of a humiliating hearing that took place the day before Robert Mueller’s puzzling press conference.”


    “DOJ Won’t Tie Russian Government to Troll Farm

    A newly released transcript reveals details of a humiliating hearing that took place the day before Mueller’s puzzling press conference. The judge asked the prosecutor, “Can you address also the specific tie to the Russian government, which is the overarching comment that the attorney general made tying both this case and then the case involving the hacking and the release of the e-mails, the GRU case, to the Russian government?”

    Buckle up, buttercup, because you’re not going to believe DOJ’s response: “The report doesn’t say that.” What? I thought we “knew” that the Russian government committed an act of war by posting politically charged information on the internet. Now the DOJ is backing away from any tie between the internet troll farm and the Russian government?

    The DOJ has now admitted that the Mueller report “itself does not state anywhere that the Russian government was behind the Internet Research Agency [and Concord] activity.” Whoa. The judge then asked, “So it is the government’s position that tying Concord and its co-defendants to the Russian government is not prejudicial?”

    In the subsequent order, Judge Freidrich wrote: “On May 29, 2019, following the Court’s hearing, the Special Counsel held a press conference…[in which he] carefully distinguished between the efforts by ‘Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military’ and the efforts of” Concord. This, the Judge found, made the criminal contempt proceedings she contemplated against Mueller’s team “unnecessary and excessive under the circumstances.”

    A narrow escape it was indeed. Freidrich found that both the release of the Mueller report and Barr’s statements boosting the report violated DC Rule 57.7 prohibiting lawyers from trying cases in the press. Judge Freidrich rejected the government’s argument that the Mueller report did not smear Concord with unproven links to the Russian government.”

    Russia or Russian Entities?
    “By attributing [the conduct] to ‘Russia’-as opposed to Russian individuals or entities—the report suggests that [Concord’s internet activities] were undertaken on behalf of, if not at the direction of the Russian government,” she wrote. Remember, the government has now denied in court that it even alleged Concord worked for the Russian government to post political messages on the internet.

    The government, Freidrich found, “violated a standing court rule” by making these public pronouncements that intruded upon the question to be tried in her courtroom. To save Mueller’s team from “criminal contempt,” Freidrich exercised her discretion to decline to “initiate criminal contempt proceedings in response to the government’s Rule 57.7 violation.”


  9. I forgot where I learned this, maybe seminary, or some such. But I remember the admonition from long ago:}
    “Never get into an argument with a man who has a microphone”

    As part of the ongoing feud that’s emerged this week between Tucker Carlson and Ilhan Omar, the Fox News host spent the first 20 minutes of his show Wednesday night responding to the freshman Democrats’ call for him to be fired and advertisers to boycott the show due to his “white supremacist rhetoric.”


  10. Once again, the Democrats enabled this guy at every turn.


    “Convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein never once checked in with city cops in the eight-plus years since a Manhattan judge ordered him to do so every 90 days — and the NYPD says it’s fine with that.

    After being labeled a worst-of-the-worst, Level 3 sex offender in 2011, Epstein should have reported in person to verify his address 34 times before he was arrested Saturday on federal child sex-trafficking charges.

    Violating requirements of the state’s 1996 Sex Offender Registration Act — including checking in with law enforcement — is a felony punishable by up to four years in prison for a first offense.

    Subsequent violations carry a sentence of up to seven years each.

    But the NYPD hasn’t required the billionaire financier — who owns a $77 million Upper East Side townhouse — to check in since he registered as a sex offender in New York over the controversial 2008 plea bargain he struck in Florida amid allegations he sexually abused scores of underage girls in his Palm Beach mansion.

    Several current and former high-ranking NYPD officials were shocked to learn from The Post that the department had given Epstein a pass on his periodic check-ins, with one saying, “It makes no sense.”

    “The NYPD can’t modify a court order,” a source said. “If the judge says he has to report here, he has to report here.”


  11. Democrats love them some revisionist history.

    And they love them some pervert money too.


    “The earliest interaction Clinton said that he had with Epstein was in 2002, which is the same time period that Epstein is alleged to have engaged in the criminal activity described in the charges released this week.

    However, a new Fox News report sheds light on interactions that Clinton had with Epstein from nearly a decade prior to the timeline of events that Clinton provided to the public:

    But according to a story published back in March 1995 by the Palm Beach Post, then-President Clinton attended a “three-hour dinner” at the time with a “very select group of people” at the Palm Beach home of business magnate Ron Perelman. The diverse group included Epstein — as well as singer Jimmy Buffet, actor Don Johnson, then-co-chairman of the Democratic National Committee Don Fowler and others.

    The report noted: “Joining Clinton for a three-hour dinner was a very select group of people, some of whom, according to one Democratic Party source, gave as much as $100,000 to the Democratic National Committee for the privilege of dining with the president.”

    Fox News added that Clinton’s office did not respond to a request for comment on how well the two knew each other during Clinton’s presidency.”


  12. More popcorn stat! 🙂




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.