The Comey Memos


So, these are what I see as some take-aways from the Comey memos:

  1. Donald Trump encouraged Comey to investigate, not only the allegations of collusion between Russians and any members of the Trump campaign, but also the sexual allegations made about him, explaining that he didn’t want his wife to think that they might be true.  Would a guilty man encourage the Director of the FBI to investigate him?
  2. Comey assured the president that he, Comey,  was not a liar or a leaker, and never engaged in “weasely” behavior.  In fact, he was a liar, a leaker, and a weasel.
  3. Comey  assured Trump that he was not the target of any FBI investigation, while at the same time refusing to confirm this publicly, despite the President’s demand that he do so.  This strikes me as insubordination by the FBI Director, who apparently did not realize, or did not accept, that the President was his boss.
  4. Comey says that he briefed the President on the Steele Dossier, because CNN was pressuring him to do so.  He also failed to tell Trump that it was the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign that commissioned and paid for Steele’s opposition research, despite the fact that he had to have known that to be true when the briefing took place.
  5. Trump told Comey that he had doubts about Michael Flynn’s judgment, but also expressed sympathy for him, because he believed Flynn to be a good man.  This always seemed to be the reason why Trump asked Comey to “go easy” on Flynn, as opposed to doing so because he was trying to obstruct justice.

Ok, so how does any of this incriminate Trump?  And, why did the leaking of these memos lead to the appointment of a Special Counsel?   At worst,  the memos seem to indicate that Comey thought that Trump was boorish and unattractive, ignorant of protocol, and too pushy.

Mostly, it appears that Trump’s most serious crime was…firing James Comey.

Is America abandoning all of its unifying norms?


This seems to be happening before our eyes.   And the very few politicians who see it, seem powerless ~ or unwilling ~ to stop it.

“the Roman republic, flawed as it was, deteriorated and finally disintegrated over a period of many years, because leaders abandoned traditional but unwritten norms that had held the polity together. Ultimately, as one tradition after another was violated, political assassination and armed antifa-like gangs became more or less accepted political tactics.
We are not yet at the political assassination stage, although I don’t think I would want to issue a life insurance policy on Donald Trump. But the trend is ominous. The Left, which has wholly taken over the Democratic Party, is Jacobin. It brooks no opposition. Wherever it can–universities, liberal-dominated companies like Google, perhaps Facebook and Twitter–it stamps out conservative speech.”

John Hinderaker compares what is happening in the US to what occurred during the fall of the Roman Empire.   He’s not alone in making this comparison.  

When leftist judge Kimba Wood (once nominated for Attorney General by Bill Clinton, but forced to drop out, because she employed an illegal immigrant as a nanny) compelled Michael Cohen’s lawyer to reveal that Sean Hannity was one of Cohen’s clients, she thrilled the liberal media.  But not one “reporter” on CNN, MSNBC, or the rest, ever questioned how this gross violation of privacy and attorney-client privilege had anything  to do with the legal matter before the court.  Not one.  And, as far as I can tell, there has been little outcry from the legal community, despite this outrageous violation of legal norms.  

What turns this around?



“Voters are willing to put up with a lot of nonsense for a president they think is basically on their side”

Says David Brooks, in his New York Times op-ed this week, “The Failures of Anti-Trumpism”  It is one of the best columns that I have read, maybe the best one, by a Never-Trumper trying to explain the Trump phenomenon.

On the one hand, Brooks writes about the tribalism that has divided our country and that shows no signs of moderating.  On the other hand, Brooks, unlike other anti-Trumpers, understands, and accepts, that Trump won because he  understood the problems of large parts of America better than anyone else.”

He ends his column with this:  “Just after the election, Luigi Zingales wrote a Times op-ed on how not to fight Trump, based on the Italian experience fighting Silvio Berlusconi. Don’t focus on personality or the man, Zingales advised. That will just make Trump the people’s hero against the Washington caste. Focus instead on the social problems that gave rise to Trumpism.

That is the advice we anti-Trumpers still need to learn.”

Exactly.  Attacking Trump because he’s not like the other politicians in D.C., or because he  doggedly pursues his agenda, in the face of almost unimaginable opposition, is not going to change the mind of a single Trump voter, but may convince many on the fence that Trump is an underdog, deserving of their support.

Amazing that so many in the anti-Trump camp cannot see that.


Just get rid of the SAT’s


“Evidence that some foreign applicants are displacing Americans because of an unfair advantage on the SAT could add to a backlash against standardized testing in college admissions. Most universities still require applicants to take the SAT or its rival, the ACT, which is more popular in the United States. Yet a growing number of schools have questioned the usefulness of the exams and now make them optional. The SAT is taken by far more foreign students applying to U.S. colleges than the ACT is.”

It appears that the “unfair advantage” is actually just flat-out cheating.  Isn’t that what you call it when someone gets the questions in advance?

“Gaming the SAT can take many forms. One scam is time-zone cheating, in which test-takers in one part of the world feed questions and answers from the SAT to people sitting the exam later the same day. Another problem is the outright theft of test booklets. In 2015, SAT administrators began shipping booklets to and from some test centers in lock boxes.”

“Gaming”, huh?

“The largest threat to the SAT’s integrity appears to come from the test-preparation centers. The Asian cram schools have prospered by exploiting what is perhaps the College Board’s biggest security weakness: its practice of taking questions and entire sections from tests that have been previously given in the United States and reusing them in later versions of the SAT, typically those offered overseas.”

And here I always thought that foreign students did better on the SAT’s, because they had attended more rigorous schools !





Pompous bully Cory Booker

Unsurprisingly,  the Senator from New Jersey chose to make his contribution to the confirmation hearing of Mike Pompeo all about identity politics.

Now, I do think that most politicians are liars and phonies, but, even with that said, Cory Booker is uniquely mendacious and insincere.   He is obviously going to run for president in 2020, and every public appearance that he makes is now focused on that goal.

He was a failed mayor.  He’s a terrible senator.  So, it stands to reason that he wants the chance to be president.

Ted Cruz’s excellent questioning of Zuckerberg

In today’s hearing, Ted Cruz was the only senator who questioned the Facebook founder and CEO about the real dangers of Facebook’s bias and its shutting down of politically incorrect speech.

 And, if I do say so, Mark Zuckerberg answered as the lying, partisan monopolist that he is…