Just Proving Her Collateral

Woman Takes Clothes Off in Front of Bank Manager in Attempt to Secure a Loan

After being refused a loan at a bank in Kazan, Russia, a young woman tried to convince the bank manager to approve the loan by stripping in front of him.

Yulia Kuzmina, who is reportedly in her mid-20s, went to a bank in Kazan, the capital city of The Republic of Tatarstan in western Russia, to secure a loan for a new car. She filled out all the necessary forms, but her application was denied after the bank’s analysis determined that she was an unreliable borrower. After pleading with the loan manager, Kuzmina decided it was time for desperate measures and started taking her clothes off in front of him.

So, all I want to know is how much she was asking for.

Is this the same Yulia Kuzmina?



Probably not.

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Naomi Wu up on time and within budget.

Chesapeake Oysters a Tough Nut to Crack

Restoring wild oyster population proving a challenge around Chesapeake Bay

Out on the Potomac River, oysters had a particularly rough year in 2018. Plans to build a new sanctuary were tabled due to heavy rains throughout the year that lowered the salinity of the river—something oysters don’t like. Even at the mouth of the Potomac, where the normal salinity range in the winter is about 15 to 20 parts per thousand, it has dropped to about 7 ppt. That’s devastating for the bivalves.

Oysters don't like a salinity of 7, but they'll live, and grow, if slowly. Below about 3 is lethal, though. Those low salinities got pushed a long way down the Potomac, as well as the mainstem Bay this year.

Martin Gary heads the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, which regulates all recreational and commercial fishing, crabbing, oystering and clamming in the main stem of the Potomac River for Maryland and Virginia. He said a majority of oysters died in one sanctuary above the U.S. 301 bridge, an area where they normally tolerate some heavy rains. Even Special Management Areas planted with wild baby oysters and harvested on a rotational basis had “extremely high levels of mortality” and showed no signs of reproduction.

And so far this year, the precipitation hasn’t let up.

“It’s not like we’re catching a break,” said Gary, who isn’t sure conditions will change enough to be able to plant oyster seed later in the year. “Unless we go into a full-out drought, we’re not going to have conditions conducive to planting.”

Comparisons to the amount of rainfall in 2018 are being made to Hurricane Agnes in 1972, which contributed to a smothering dead zone the following year that devastated the remaining wild oyster population in the Potomac.

“The difference,” Gary said, “is that Agnes came in one fell swoop and this has been staggered throughout the year, so it’s almost worse. Late 1972, the salinities came back up. They’ve not come up in the Potomac.”

To add insult to injury, once the government shut down, so did access to data from NOAA buoys, including water salinity information, so he’s unable to keep an eye on it.

I don't see why they shut off data from the buoys, except as spite. They report autonomously, and are posted on the web without human intervention. Unless the buoy choose that moment to die, that is.

We'll see how much damage last year's rains did. All over the bay, salinities were well below normal, and that will affect a number of things.

Linked by EBL in Eva Marie Saint, Perdita Weeks, Jeremy & The Harlequins: Starlight and Into The Night, Soraia: Still I Rise, Punxsutawney Phil: We are sending you a message before Groundhogs Day... and Blondie: Denis.

Rolling Stone Russiagate

That was fast. The Last Tradition, Roger Stone slams Mueller’s fascist tactics, history in Boston.  WaEx, Roger Stone defiant in face of Mueller charges, to ABC, Roger Stone, ahead of arraignment, won’t categorically rule out cooperation agreement with special counsel, Roger Stone: Sure I’ll Talk To Mueller If My Lawyers OK It (Hot Air).

You know, that’s a question I would have to – I have to determine after my attorneys have some discussion. If there’s wrongdoing by other people in the campaign that I know about, which I know of none, but if there is I would certainly testify honestly.

I’d also testify honestly about any other matter, including any communications with the president. It’s true that we spoke on the phone, but those communications are political in nature, they’re benign, and there is – there is certainly no conspiracy with Russia.

The Stone indictment makes it official (albeit unstated): NO COLLUSION.

Mueller's got NOTHING. Except a 20-month record of prosecutorial misconduct.

Now, who will apologize to this president and remove the cloud of suspicion over his duly elected presidency?

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) January 26, 2019

At Da Caller, Corsi: ‘I Will Be Happy’ To Testify Against Roger Stone. If he were a left-wing journolist, journolisters everywhere would be screaming. Da Beast, No Escape for Roger Stone: Mueller’s Case Is a Slam Dunk and He’s Too Slimy to Get Flipped

Finally, do not expect to see Special Counsel Robert Mueller make any attempt to flip Stone and have him cooperate. A defendant like Stone is far more trouble than he is worth to a prosecutor. Stone is too untrustworthy for a prosecutor to ever rely upon. He has told so many documented lies, and bragged so often about his dirty tricks, that he simply has too much baggage to deal with even if here to want to cooperate—which seems unlikely in any event. Mueller, I suspect, would not even be willing to engage in a preliminary debrief with Stone to just test the possibility of cooperation out of concern that Stone would immediately go on television with his pals at Fox News to decry Mueller’s Gestapo tactics.

Neo, The capture of Roger Stone, Public Enemy #2 "You can rest easy in your beds, folks, because the intrepid FBI has captured fearsome process criminal Roger Stone" ChiTrib Commentary: Roger Stone's indictment is all bun and no beef

“By in or around June and July 2016, Stone informed senior Trump Campaign officials that he had information indicating Organization 1 had documents whose release would be damaging to the Clinton Campaign. After the July 22, 2016 release of stolen DNC emails by Organization 1, a senior Trump Campaign official was directed to contact Stone about any additional releases and what other damaging information Organization 1 had regarding the Clinton Campaign. Stone thereafter told the Trump Campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by Organization 1.”

But what, exactly, did Stone know? How did he know it? And how did that help the Trump campaign?

The indictment doesn’t offer much grist for those mills. It portrays Stone as operating on the fringe of the Trump campaign, having trouble getting his calls returned by a top campaign official. It also suggests that he lied when he publicly claimed to have been briefed directly by WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange; Stone appears to have relied on conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi and Credico for all his information about WikiLeaks. And the only useful tip Stone is accused of providing the campaign is advance knowledge that WikiLeaks would make another Clinton-related data dump in October.

Perhaps that’s why Stone, whose official role as a Trump campaign adviser ended acrimoniously in 2015, had trouble getting his calls returned.

One of the more tantalizing allegations in the indictment is that Stone worked through Credico to ask Assange for any hacked emails he might have from Clinton herself or the State Department that could confirm an unspecified accusation about Clinton’s work as secretary of state. While the indictment asserts that Assange got the request, there’s no indication that anything came of it.

That’s the indictment in a nutshell. Stone comes across as someone who talked a good game about his insights into what WikiLeaks had obtained and what it planned, then allegedly lied to Congress about what he’d done and said. But Mueller’s team hasn’t offered much about what Stone actually knew and how he knew it, which seem like the most consequential questions.

The Last Tradition, Tucker Carlson: Robert Mueller commands his own domestic army Watch video at link.

At Lawfare, Chuck Rosenberg insists that Roger Stone’s Arrest Was Appropriate, Not Heavy-Handed. A 29 gun salute to the value of government. Roger Stone indictment: Is this all Mueller has, or is he closing in on Trump? Analysis: The charges do not allege Russian coordination, but Mueller might be building a conspiracy case says the Peacock, hopefully.

Glenn Kirschner, another former federal prosecutor and NBC News contributor, went further:

"This is a conspiracy indictment," he said. "He just left out the conspiracy charges."

In an effort to induce Stone to cooperate, Kirschner believes, Mueller filed a basic set of charges that allowed him to arrest Stone in a pre-dawn raid with heavily armed FBI agents.

If Stone fails to flip, Kirschner and other experts theorize, Mueller will file a superseding indictment in a few weeks detailing much more serious charges. Mueller followed that pattern in the case of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, observers point out.

Hot  Air: Poll: Support For Investigating Trump — But Skepticism That It’ll Be Fair. Democrats don't want it to be fair, Republicans suspect it isn't. Julie Kelly at American Greatness asks Who Leaked the Bogus WikiLeaks Email About Don Jr.? Sounds like Shit to me. The Battleswarm Blog reminds us, The “Russia Hacked The DNC” Allegation Remains Unproven. All the talking heads seem to take it as a fact, but in truth, it's just a allegation by the CIA and FBI that have been wrong many times before. It needs to be tested publicly, in a court.

But to quote another hard-left outlet, The Nation, about the DNC hack:

This journalistic mission led The Nation to be troubled by the paucity of serious public scrutiny of the January 2017 intelligence-community assessment (ICA) on purported Russian interference in our 2016 presidential election, which reflects the judgment of the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA. That report concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered the hacking of the DNC and the dissemination of e-mails from key staffers via WikiLeaks, in order to damage Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. This official intelligence assessment has since led to what some call “Russiagate,” with charges and investigations of alleged collusion with the Kremlin, and, in turn, to what is now a major American domestic political crisis and an increasingly perilous state of US-Russia relations. To this day, however, the intelligence agencies that released this assessment have failed to provide the American people with any actual evidence substantiating their claims about how the DNC material was obtained or by whom. Astonishingly and often overlooked, the authors of the declassified ICA themselves admit that their “judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.”

But the Democratic Media Complex will still push the “Russia hacked the DNC!” talking point out out of political necessity. Anything to maintain the mass hysteria bubble.

Fox, Gregg Jarrett: Testimony in Russia probe shows FBI and Justice Department misconduct in effort to hurt Trump

And for our moment of lefvity, Michael Avenatti Trolls Trump at the Oscars of Porn: ‘He’s F*cked More People Than Anybody’

On Saturday night, celebrity attorney Michael Avenatti, a man whose quick ascent to mainstream fame came almost as suddenly as his decline this past winter, accompanied his client Stormy Daniels on the red carpet of the 36th annual AVN Awards, known as the “Oscars of Porn.”

Avenatti, who briefly flirted with a 2020 run until a domestic violence allegation against him in December, spent more of his time talking about centrist policy than smut. Though he endorsed Medicare for All and free college, the lawyer also expressed wariness of the Abolish ICE movement, and a familiar skepticism against a Green New Deal, calling it “unrealistic.”

“I think we certainly have to figure out the health-care situation,” Avenatti told The Daily Beast. “There’s too many Americans that don’t have insurance and are concerned about their health care and rightfully so. I do think we have to have a strong southern border, but that doesn’t mean we necessarily have to build a wall. I think we’ve got to find a way for each kid in America to go to college if they want to go to college. Above all else, whoever the Democrats nominate, they’ve got to be a fighter. If Trump is the nominee on the other side, he’s not just going to roll over, you’re going to have to take the fight to him.”

What a cute couple! Won't they look good as President and First Hooker? The Democrats should be proud of attracting a blackmailer, and her lawyer to their ranks.

Are You Ready for Summer Yet?

I am. How about some "beachwear?"



The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Naomi Wu up on time and within budget.

Oh No! They're All Gonna Burn

From Watts Up With That, California’s Wildfire History – in one map

Here is an interesting interactive graphic that depicts perimeters of more than 100 years of California wildfires recorded by Cal Fire and the U.S. Geological Survey. The map below shows all the cumulative fires from 1878 to 2018. It seems as if there is very little of California that has not been touched by wildfire. Large areas of desert in the southeast are mostly untouched due to lack of vegetation.

http://projects.capradio.org/california-fire-history/#6/38.58/-121.49

I remember watching the Santa Monica Mountains burn from our living room bay window in Rancho Park. Several times.

You Would Need a Heart of Stone Not to Laugh

From Stacy McCain, Would You Hire @ChloeAngyal? (With Extra Special Bonus Schadenfreude). I think the opening image is enough to make you want to read it all:

Dr. Chloe Angyal

Wow, a PhD in Romantic Comedies! I'm impressed. It must be hard to stay obsessed (and PhDs require an obsession, if not much else) on something so trivial.

In March 2018, Dr. Angyal boasted of her success in reducing the number of white males writing for Huffington Post:

The Huffington Post deputy opinion editor shared her publication’s policy for promoting minority writers, yet creating a quota-like system based on race or gender could violate U.S. discrimination laws.
In a series of tweets [March 14], HuffPost editor Chloe Angyal discussed the racial makeup of the news website’s opinion columnists for the month.

“Month two of @HuffPost Opinion is almost done. This month we published: 63% women, inc. trans women; 53% writers of colour.”

One tweet seems to disclose a kind of quota system at the opinion section, with Angyal discussing her “goals” for the racial and gender composition of contributors.

“Our goals for this month were: less than 50% white authors (check!), Asian representation that matches or exceeds the US population (check!), more trans and non-binary authors (check, but I want to do better).” . . .

As Angyal admits, she tracks the race and gender identity of contributors at the beginning of each week so she “doesn’t lose track” of meeting the diversity goals.

“I check our numbers at the end of every week, because it’s easy to lose track or imagine you’re doing better than you really are, and the numbers don’t lie.”

As the Daily Caller’s Joe Simonson noted at the time, this kind of “diversity” policy — a focus on “numbers” as “goals,” which could be interpreted as systematic discrimination — actually violates Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, as well as the state law in New York, which is where Huffington Post is officially headquartered.

Of course, Dr. Angyal’s “diversity” policy, while achieving its goal of eliminating opportunities for white male writers, did nothing to increase the diversity of ideas at HuffPo — quite the opposite. During her tenure, Huffington Post became even more of a monolith of left-wing opinion than it had previously been. Did she have “goals” for, say, pro-life Christians? Or libertarian writers? Did she check the “numbers” to ensure an adequate “representation” of pro-Trump opinions? Don’t be absurd! No libertarians or Trump supporters were ever published under Dr. Angyal’s tenure, and the opinion columns at Huffington Post remained fanatically pro-abortion, anti-Christian and, frankly, anti-American.

Oh, did I forget to mention that Chloe Angyal is a foreigner?

She’s from Sydney, Australia, and in 2014 got a Ph.D. from the University of New South Wales with a dissertation entitled “Gender, Sex, and Power in the Postfeminist Romantic Comedy.” So here we have an immigrant intellectual obsessed with “Gender, Sex, and Power” who has, by her own admission, enforced discriminatory policies that violate U.S. civil rights laws and, while I’m not saying President Trump should send ICE agents to arrest Chloe Angyal and ship her back to Australia, I’m not surprised that she’s unemployed. And I’m pretty sure foreigners don’t qualify for unemployment checks, food stamps, or other benefits. . . .

I would tell her to go home, but I like the Australians too much. Maybe she should take a few years to visit Venezuela and see how well socialism is working out. She might even be able to get a romantic comedy out of the experience.

Linked by EBL in Perdita Weeks, Jeremy & The Harlequins: Starlight and Into The Night, Soraia: Still I Rise, Punxsutawney Phil: We are sending you a message before Groundhogs Day... and Blondie: Denis.

Some Rational Russiagate

The smart, or at least knowledgeable guys and gals are starting to weigh in on Stone's indictment and arrest. Take the time to read their entire contributions

Andrew McCarthy at NR, Stone Indictment Underscores That There Was No Trump-Russia Conspiracy

Roger Stone is the shiny object. The obstruction charges in his long-anticipated indictment, made public on Friday, are not the matter of consequence for the United States.

Nor is the critical thing the indictment’s implicit confirmation that there was no criminal “collusion” conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.

What matters is this: The indictment is just the latest blatant demonstration that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office, the Department of Justice, and the FBI have known for many months that there was no such conspiracy. And yet, fully aware that the Obama administration, the Justice Department, and the FBI had assiduously crafted a public narrative that Trump may have been in cahoots with the Russian regime, they have allowed that cloud of suspicion to hover over the presidency — over the Trump administration’s efforts to govern — heedless of the damage to the country. . .

Jonathon Turley at USA Today, Roger Stone indictment isn't good news for those seeking Trump impeachment

Mueller however seems to have a strikingly inconsistent approach to these targets. With some targets, Mueller followed the common practice of allowing them to surrender. For Manafort and and Stone, Mueller carried out heavy-handed raids. With Michael Cohen, Mueller matter-of-factly in a footnote noted that he made various false statements but was allowed to simply correct them. With Stone the allegedly false statements were all related to part of his congressional testimony regarding the meaning of prior public statements and past written communications with Wikileaks.
. . .
The main issue however remains the lack of objectivity of the coverage of the indictment. Stone has featured prominently in theories seeking "smoking gun" evidence of collusion. There is nothing smoking in this indictment. There is no suggestion of involvement or knowledge by Stone in the hacking. Stone has suggested that he was a conduit of hacked information from Wikileaks but he later insisted that he was not actually speaking to Julian Assange and that he had no direct knowledge that Russians were responsible for the Democratic hackings. The indictment does not contradict that later account.

The indictment clearly states that Stone told multiple campaign officials that he had such information and the question is who "directed" campaign officials to reach out to Stone. Obviously, many will want to know if that person was President Trump or his close aides. On the other hand, it also references people like Steve Bannon as not even returning his calls.

The important thing is that, even if Stone and the campaign did seek the email information, it would not be a crime. The crime is the conspiracy to hack the email system. Campaigns often seek confidential information obtained by journalists, leakers, whistleblowers and others. Indeed, the Clinton campaign (while denying its role before the election) funded the Steele dossier investigation to dig up dirt on Trump, including dirt from Russian intelligence figures. Even if Stone implicated Trump in seeking the information, it would merely establish the type of dirty politics that Stone expressly embraced as his curious calling and talent.

Nailing Roger Stone on false statements was hardly a challenge. Stone could not give an interview without contradicting himself on national television. The question is, without Stone, what is left of the hack-and-attack conspiracy between the Russians and the Trump campaign? Like the Trump Tower meeting, the Stone angle seems to have fizzled out. On closer examination, there clearly appears to be dirty politics but nothing that can be fairly described as a criminal conspiracy.

Mueller has been unrelenting in pursuing Stone. Now he has him. For whatever it is worth.

Victoria Toensing at Da Caller, Why Did Christopher Wray Allow Mueller Gang To Use 29 FBI Agents On 66-Year Old Roger Stone?

Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Chris Wray should hang his head in shame. At a time when he should be restoring the FBI’s reputation after Jim Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and others tarnished its image as our country’s premier law enforcement agency, he allowed 29 gun slinging agents to make a predawn arrest of former Trump advisor Roger Stone.

Stone is not a drug dealer, nor is he a terrorist. Stone is charged with obstruction of justice and making false statements to the special counsel. Significantly, the alleged false statements specified in the indictment were about conduct, which, if admitted, was not criminal.

I prosecuted drug dealers. I never sent more than a handful of agents to arrest them, and these were were gun toting, vicious dudes. Stone does not own a gun nor does he even have a license to do so.

I supervised the prosecution and, thus, the capture of foreign terrorists. The FBI never sent 29 agents to capture even the most dangerous.

Department of Justice protocol for non-violent defendants with no flight risk is to contact defense counsel and arrange a time to appear in federal court for arraignment. Stone has claimed for months that he was about to be indicted. Yet, he did not flee. He has stated that his passport is expired. The judge did not find Stone a flight risk, releasing him on his own signature.

The reason for not sending armed agents unnecessarily into an arrest situation is the possibility of danger to law enforcement, the defendant, and family members. Stone’s deaf wife was still in bed at 6:00 a.m. when the agents barked “Open up. It’s the FBI.” The announcement is intended to alert people inside not to fight and to voluntarily open the door. But Stone’s wife would have had no idea what was happening. Are we to believe that after over a year of tracking Stone’s every move and reading all his correspondence, Mueller’s henchmen did not know this fact?

Worse, someone with the FBI or Mueller’s team dropped a dime on CNN, which sent a reporter who falsely claimed he was only there because of “reporter’s instinct.” The presence of the press was intended to send a message: “If you cross Mueller, you will be publicly humiliated.”

On Thursday, Wray denounced the partial government shutdown by posting on the FBI website that “It takes a lot to get me angry, but I’m about as angry as I have been in a long, long time.” It is time for him to get angry about how Mueller’s team used the FBI. He can start by investigating who got CNN to the arrest scene.

AP, In Trump ally Stone’s case, Mueller finds crime in cover-up

Donald Trump confidant Roger Stone may be accused of lying and tampering with witnesses, but it’s equally notable what he’s not charged with: colluding with the Kremlin in a grand conspiracy to help Trump win the presidency in 2016.

The case is the latest in a series brought by special counsel Robert Mueller that focuses on cover-ups but lays out no underlying crime. It’s a familiar pattern in Washington, where scandals from Watergate to Iran-Contra and Whitewater have mushroomed into presidency-imperiling affairs due to efforts to conceal and mislead.

In the Russia investigation , one Trump aide after another has been accused of lying to investigators, or encouraging others to do so, about Russia-related contacts during the campaign and transition period.

Mueller may well have evidence of criminal coordination between Trump associates and Russia that he has yet to reveal, but so far, he’s focused repeatedly on those he believes have tried to throw federal or congressional investigators off the trail. . . 

IJR, Jake Tapper Suggests That Roger Stone ‘Might Like’ Being in Prison Reminiscent of anarl rape jokes by National Review people that we saw that pissed Ace off so much.

One of Tapper’s panelists, former Obama adviser Jen Psaki, commented that “no one’s going to cry if Roger Stone goes to jail or when he goes to jail.” Tapper then suggested that Stone would somehow “like” prison.

“He might like it,” Tapper interjected before Psaki appeared to laugh and agree.

“He might, who knows?” she said.

Jazz Shaw at Hot Air thinks The Answers As To Why CNN Was At Roger Stone’s House Make Little Sense. Victoria got it right above. It wasn't enough to roust him and his deaf wife out of bed before dawn. It had to be on TV.

The entire Mueller investigation has been leaking like a sieve since the beginning. There are people on the inside who have created a cottage industry out of sending tips to the media. Not all of them have worked out swimmingly, as Buzzfeed can attest to, but people have been talking out of school, and almost always about things that paint the White House in the worst possible light. Call them deep state actors. Call them rats. Call them concerned citizens who think the public should be informed. Call them whatever you like, but reporters have had a direct line into this investigation and published countless news items based on “sources close to the investigation who spoke anonymously because they weren’t authorized to discuss the matter in public.” The idea that nobody would drop a dime to their friends at CNN about such a juicy story seems highly implausible at best.

Joel Cohen at Da Hill asks What exactly is Giuliani doing?. Beats me, but it sure is colorful.

So let’s assume that Trump’s statements to the public are, shall we say, different from those given to Mueller under oath. As Toobin says, “Giuliani has to sort of move Trump’s answer in line with what Trump said in the questionnaire, without seeming to. And it’s impossible. So he sounds ridiculous.”

Thus, Toobin offers, knowing that Mueller is likely to issue his report relatively soon, Giuliani, either on his own or with Trump’s blessing (and that’s a good question right there) feels the need to bring the public along to wherever this is going. That is, to prepare the public for what soon might be in the public record — i.e., that Trump indeed was planning to build a Russian hotel until the day he was elected, and only then abandoned it. All this would lead Trump’s supportive base to say, when Mueller’s report is made public, “Yeah, we knew about that; Giuliani said it. What’s the big deal?” And if that supposition is true, it sounds like the agile Giuliani of his heyday.

Some archival footage of Roger Stone with Insty. He supported the Tea Party! He clearly deserves whatever he gets!

Melania Scores in England

From the Telegraph to Melania Trump – An Apology

Following last Saturday’s (Jan 19) Telegraph magazine cover story “The mystery of Melania”, we have been asked to make clear that the article contained a number of false statements which we accept should not have been published. Mrs Trump’s father was not a fearsome presence and did not control the family.  Mrs Trump did not leave her Design and Architecture course at University relating to the completion of an exam, as alleged in the article, but rather because she wanted to pursue a successful career as a professional model. Mrs Trump was not struggling in her modelling career before she met Mr Trump, and she did not advance in her career due to the assistance of Mr Trump.

 But there's no such thing as "fake news," right?

We accept that Mrs Trump was a successful professional model in her own right before she met her husband and obtained her own modelling work without his assistance. Mrs Trump met Mr Trump in 1998, not in 1996 as stated in the article. The article also wrongly claimed that Mrs Trump’s mother, father and sister relocated to New York in 2005 to live in buildings owned by Mr Trump.  They did not. The claim that Mrs Trump cried on election night is also false.

But other than that, we still got everything right. We hates her!

We apologise unreservedly to The First Lady and her family for any embarrassment caused by our publication of these allegations. As a mark of our regret we have agreed to pay Mrs Trump substantial damages as well as her legal costs.

Is it enough to build the wall?

There's a good (but ultimately unsettled) argument about how US vs British libel law plays into this at Althouse's  "Mrs Trump’s father was not a fearsome presence and did not control the family. Mrs Trump did not leave her Design and Architecture course at University relating to the completion of an exam..."

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Naomi Wu and FMJRA 2.0: Destroy Everything You Touch up on time and within budget.

Continuing the Covington Conversation

I was reminded of the Three Laws of SJW's from Vox Day:

That is, Social Justice Warriors, aka Progressives, aka Socialists, aka almost all of the Left. What one should expect when dealing with them, to wit, The Three Laws of SJW:

1. SJWs always lie.
2. SJWs always double down.
3. SJWs always project.

We've seen how they lied about this incident. Now they continue to double down. Robin Givhan, the fashion maven from WaPoo, The MAGA hat is not a statement of policy. It’s an inflammatory declaration of identity and Jonathon Capehart, Time to take on the Covington ‘smirk’. Flopping Aces: NBC News: Wearing a MAGA Hat Means You’re a Nazi, Newsbusters: Maher Trashes 'Prick,' 'Smirkface' Covington Kid w 'S***-Eating Grin'

I don't blame the kid -- the smirking kid. I blame lead poisoning and bad parenting, and, oh yeah, I blame that f*****g kid. What a little prick -- smirkface. Smrikfaces. Please, I mean, like that's not a dick move, stick your face in this elderly man's (face).

and then

From elementary school through college I went to school with sheltered upper middle class white boys who could DEVASTATE with a smirk. A facial guesture that weaponized their privilege. Infuriatingly you can’t fight that fucking smirk with a punch or words.

— Alex Cranz (@alexhcranz) January 19, 2019

What a fucking baby! Ed Morrissey report on Great Moments In Journalism: NYT Reporter Trolling Twitter For Dirt On Christian Schools. We know what they'll "find."

Lili Loofbourow at Slate, The MAGA Teen News Cycle and Our Toxic Era of “Event Politics”

This is where event politics always seem to wind up: A ton of energy gets spent, but there’s no cognitively satisfying conclusion—no understanding, resolution, or shared meaning that helps the country progress in its conversations with itself. “It’s a jacket” might be the White House equivalent of the “it’s just a hat” defense of the Covington Catholic teens’ MAGA caps. It’s not true, and everyone knows it, but it seems dumb to overlegislate such petty terrain. And yet: Plenty of us have seen enough people in MAGA hats screaming Trump’s “lock her up” and “build the wall” catchphrases to associate those hats with people who want to … imprison their enemies without due process and lock out the tired, the poor, and the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Neither of these associations is exactly congruent with American idealism or American greatness. The hat’s text is in a fight with the hat’s subtext, and a kid smirking under its brim makes that obvious contradiction visible. Of course that image went viral. In a healthier country, that image wouldn’t have been so furiously overread because the other side would long ago have easily conceded that yes, there is something wrong and disturbing about Americans screaming “lock her up” and “build the wall.” That is not the country we have.

Rich Lowry at Politiko: In Defense of the MAGA Hat

The primary offense of the Covington Catholic High School kids wasn’t so much allegedly mobbing, mocking or getting in the face of a Native American drummer at the Lincoln Memorial.

It was wearing red Make American Great Again hats.

That was the actual, incontestable conduct that created the predicate for what happened next—the social-media mob, the cable TV brouhaha, the viral videos and all the rest of the grief they’ve been subjected to since. It all stems from presumption of guilt from what they wore on their heads.

For much of progressive America, the moment you pull on a red MAGA hat, you’re suiting up for Team Racist. You’re marking yourself out as a bigot and a goon. Your individuality doesn’t matter anymore, only the cap

Alyssa Milano showing off her qualifications for punditry

 As an analysis at Vox noted of the Covington incident, “The hats extinguished pretty much any benefit of the doubt a liberal observer might have given these kids.”

Exactly.

Alyssa Milano notoriously tweeted, “The red MAGA hat is the new white hood.” Which would be close to an apt analogy if people donned MAGA hats to carry out hideously violent crimes against African-Americans and other people uncongenial to them.

NyPo Editorial Board: Nathan Phillips is a liar, not a victim. Remember, SWJs always lie.  City Journal: Beating the Drum - As the Covington High School brouhaha reminds us, the media have precast the meaning of every story.

The story of a group of white parochial school kids wearing MAGA hats heaping racist abuse on a dignified Native American Vietnam veteran sparked an inferno of indignation across mass and social media. The incident was depicted as an iconic example of toxic white smugness, as well as a recapitulation of the history of European conquest of the American continent from its earlier inhabitants. Respected journalists and public figures responded to the images of a “smirking” teenager with calls for violence against him, his classmates, and their parents. Even after the story was debunked, many commenters kept their outrage burning, and pointed to photos taken years before, involving none of the participants in the recent event, as evidence that the school— Covington Catholic High School, in Park Hills, Kentucky—is infected by a virulent racism that can be cured only by closing it, razing it, and sowing salt in the ground.

Ace's: Can't let go of those drumbeats [KT]

John Hayward has an idea:

Suggestion: have (Sarah) Sanders answer all future questions by walking up to reporters and banging a drum in their faces. Apparently that's soothing and you are required to show polite respect to people who do it. . . .

And much more. Ace: lulzzzzzzzzzz

Sending a bunch of racist shitty catholic kids to the rez to learn and be saved from their racist ways is not a good solution to the shitty racist kids thing. Indian Country has dealt with enough bullshit from racist Catholics looking for salvation.

— john r stanton (@dcbigjohn) January 19, 2019

Then karmic justice strikes.

I’ve been laid off. I’m extraordinarily proud of the work I and my colleagues have done during my 6 and half years at BuzzFeed. It was an extraordinary group of reporters and editors to work with.

— john r stanton (@dcbigjohn) January 25, 2019

I hope you know how to code, asshole. (The joke is that lot's of lefties recommended that coal miners learn to code after losing their jobs thanks to Obama's war on coal). Forbes, The Level of Violent Imagery Directed Against Covington High Boys Is Dangerous and Wrong. It's positively insane. Even had they done what they were originally thought to have done, the 1st Amendment covers it. John Hawkins, PJ Media, Long Term, How Do We Live With the Sorts of People Smearing Covington Catholic Teen Nick Sandmann? Most of them aren't that fearsome in person; in fact, they're kind of pussies. But never yield. Sister Toldjah at Red State, MAGA Hat Shame Game Is Not About Racism, It’s About Suppressing Dissent. Indeed. Never yield.

WaT, ASU lecturer apologizes after misidentifying Covington student: 'I am horrified'. Mind you she apologizes for the error, not for calling for blackballing a high school student from college. Fire her. It's fair.

Ms. Wallace and others urged people to call Cincinnati State’s admissions office and persuade them not to accept the student. The family of the student, who does attend Covington Catholic but wasn’t in Washington at the time of the rally, said the widespread misinformation resulted in violent threats and harassment.

Fire her. It's only fair. She's willing to blackball students based on their alleged political opinions. Turnabout is fair play.

Power Line: Covington Catholic Update.

In a saner world, we might expect liberals to be embarrassed by the Covington Catholic fiasco and perhaps to reflect on how they have gone so badly astray. But in this world? Don’t even think about it. Leftists are already trying to dig up more incidents they can use to smear the school, its students, and ultimately, I suppose, the Catholic church.

WPCO Cincinnati, Nicholas Sandmann's family hires 'attorney for the damned' specializing in libel, slander. Good. Breaking: Covington Catholic Bishop Foys makes FULL apology to Nicholas Sandmann and the students he wrongfully accused in his initial statement. He should. He should grovel. Kurt Schlicter, Yeah, The Covington Kids Have A Case

You go after the media targets, the ones who you can prove – via their tweets and news reports – knew the truth but didn’t print it to support their agenda. You find the Twitter trolls who circulated these lies and then find out their paymasters. And you find the blue check psychos demanding these kids be murdered for their race, religion, gender, and the baffled smile, in the face of the abuse that these liars hid from their audience.

It’s a new age. It’s brought forth new atrocities. We need to decide as a society whether we are going to accept this dreadful phenomenon or stamp it out by making the perpetrators pay. If the old legal framework cannot right this wrong, then we need to create a new legal framework that will. And you do that by suing the hell out of them.

The Daily Signal: The Covington Fiasco Is a Perfect Example of Why the Founders Distrusted Democracy. Town Hall, Why They Fight: For Many Women, Kavanaugh Could've Been Their Husband, and the Covington Teens Could've Been Their Sons

A sharp insight from National Review's David French, who agrees with me that there are some relevant parallels between the Kavanaugh fight and the Covington affair. Why were conservatives so energized over both controversies? Because they witnessed the Left trying to destroy lives and reputations, regardless of evidence, for nakedly political and tribalistic reasons. Many right-leaning women, in particular, have bristled at the remorseless, ends-driven attacks, which have drawn them into the fight:

Between the Kavanaugh debacle and now what happened with these MAGA boys, there’s a lot of nervous boy moms and dads out there. If they can and will seek to destroy these guys, they’ll come after yours.

— Bethany S. Mandel (@bethanyshondark) January 21, 2019

The Morning Rant at Ace's:

"So, this week, the media's Covington narrative collapsed faster than Bill Clinton's pants at a hookers' convention. It was discovered that Nathan Phillips, touted by the MSM as a 'respected tribal elder', was lying his ass off: He lied about who he was, he lied about being mocked, he lied 8 different ways about his military service, he lied about why he approached a group of kids at a pro-life march, in short, he lied about everything. Heck, Jane Fonda has spent more time in Vietnam than Phillips ever has. All Phillips does is annoy people. He can be accurately described as a professional protestor/agitator and far from being a 'respected' elder, Native Americans don't think much of him. He was at the pro-life march for one reason only: to provoke an incident, and then cry about it to a sympathetic media. Of course the media believed every word he said and didn't bother to do any actual fact-checking. Yeah, 2019 is looking like another kick-ass year for the MSM. And it's not even February."

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Naomi Wu and FMJRA 2.0: Destroy Everything You Touch up on time and within budget.

A Requiem for the Reign of Pain

So, is it over, or will it start again in three weeks? Never-Trumper Allahpundit: Shutdown Fallout: Did Trump Cave?

Yep. Most anti-Trumpers on social media are gloating about Trump giving up but I don’t want to beat on him for doing the sensible thing, however belatedly, before something terrible happened. I don’t understand why he didn’t just agree to re-open the government permanently, though, and declare a national emergency today instead of punting the decision for another three weeks. There’s zero chance that the new negotiations will include any wall money and there’s almost zero chance that Trump will let another shutdown begin in February after the pain of this one. The emergency decree is his only option except outright surrender. Postponing it will only cause another round of, ahem, “massive blowback” next month.

Ace: So Here's the Actual Situation

1. Trump and Republicans are losing support, not gaining it.

This means that the current tactic is not moving the Overton Window in the right direction. It's moving it in the left direction. Nancy Pelosi is winning the shutdown as it's currently occurring. Why would she back down or negotiate when her best play is to just keep on doing what she's doing?

This is like a football team running the ball every play and getting stuffed for a half yard loss every play. And then one coach says "Maybe we could mix things up with a pass or trick play" and other coaches say, "That's for The Gayz. Let's keep running to show we're not afraid to run."

Okay, we could do that. But what are we hoping to accomplish there, beyond demonstrating our capacity for masochism and willingness to eat political failure in order to crap policy failure?

What is the actual upside of "keep on doing what we're doing?" Someone please explain this to me. We're losing. Keeping doing what we're doing means more losing. . . .

I feel like there's some underpants gnome logic going on here:

1, do the same thing which is not working
2, ???
3, profit politically, win the wall

I need to know what "2" is there.

#2 should be to continue to publicize and emphasize the damage that uncontrolled illegal immigration is doing to the country. Every crime by an illegal, every person displaced from a job, every dollar from the treasury spent to support them. And we need to make the right constituents pay the price. Bus all the captured illegal alien families to Nancy Pelosi's district for release. Hey, they gotta go somewhere. It's a long slow battle, and the Democrats and the media will resist every step of the way.

Tom Maguire at Just One Minute: Trump Moves To Deferred Victory Status. The Right Scoop.“I hate to see the president do this…” – Mark Levin on Trump’s SOTU decision. I'm shocked.

Via Wombat's In The Mailbox: 01.25.19, Shot In The Dark writes an Open Letter To All The Media Working The “Displaced Federal Worker” Angle

To: Most Of You In Big Media
From: Mitch Berg, Irascible Peasant
Re: Perspective

All,

I remember back in 2003, during the post-9/11 recession, when my field was in its “last hired, first fired” phase, and I – a single parent with two kids – got laid off from a contracting job after my old startup closed.

How it took me three months to get an interview. Five to earn *any* money. And 10.5 months to actually get a job – which led to 6-12 months catching up back bills, and years rebuilding credit. How we scrimped, stretched unemployment checks and a tax refund and about five weeks of contract work to cover six months.

And you know what I remember the most? How the media constantly did stories talking about all the trouble we unemployed and underemployed private sector workers were having, and how dire our situations were – even after *two missed paychecks*, and nobody saying “when you finally land a job (whenever that is), we’re going to give you all the “back pay” you would have had coming”.

That helped so much.

UPDATE: Wait – that never happened. Nobody gave a crap. To the media, private sector unemployment when there’s a GOP president is a feature, not a bug. . . .

Daniel Horowitz at the CR: Trump should revisit 3 executive powers to break the border impasse. "Threaten executive action, End DACA, Shut down all border migration, Threaten a military buildup, Make Democrats take tough votes." Sounds like a reasonable approach to Ace's #2 above as well.

AllahPundit: Wait, Pelosi’s Still Not Letting Trump Deliver The State Of The Union On Tuesday? 

She probably figures that as long as there’s no *final* agreement between the two sides on border security she can’t afford to risk giving him a free shot at her and her party for a full hour on national television. If they had agreed today to a long-term compromise maybe she would have chanced it on Tuesday, figuring that Trump would have kept the jabs at Dems to a minimum and focused instead on celebrating what they had agreed to. But they’re still negotiating, albeit with the government re-opened now for a few weeks. Why hand him an opportunity to gain leverage in that negotiation?

The price of weakness.

Stoned Again Russiagate

As you might expect, lot's of material on the indictment and early morning arrest of Roger Stone on a variety of crimes apparently caused by the Special Counsel investigation of him. Never-Trumper Patterico: Roger Stone Indicted and Arrested; Is there any sweeter way to begin the weekend? New York Times: WaPoo: Mueller charges Stone, striking deep inside Trump’s inner circle. and boy are they thrilled.

The 24-page document goes further than Mueller ever has toward answering the core question of his probe: Did Trump or those close to him try to conspire with the Kremlin? The indictment notes that before Stone’s alleged actions in the summer of 2016, the Democratic National Committee announced it had been hacked by Russian government operatives, implying that Stone must have known that.

It does not allege Stone conspired with anyone but suggests his mission was to find out how the stolen material would be made public — something that, on its own, would not necessarily constitute a crime.

Which is bullshit, because around that time it was well known that Clinton and the DNC were sloppy with e-mail, and we suspected any foreign power with half a brain was monitoring them. It's still not clear that it was the Russians that leaked to Wikileaks. I hope Stone's lawyers are willing to force Mueller to make that case. But John Podesta is pretty happy: It might now be Roger Stone’s time in the barrel. But it might be his turn next, for all that unregistered foreign lobbying.

 From the Wombat's  In The Mailbox: 01.25.19, Power Line: Roger Stone’s Arrest – What’s Scandalous & What Isn’t,

The salient point is that Mueller’s indictment of Stone confirms that the Trump campaign had nothing to do with the theft of emails from the Democratic National Committee or their publication by Wikileaks. The allegations against Stone all have to do with what happened after Wikileaks dumped the first batch of DNC emails. Stone tried–unsuccessfully–to get in touch with Julian Assange or someone else who could tell him whether Wikileaks had more emails, and if so, what they contained. As Byron points out, everyone in the political world, in the Summer of 2016, was trying to find out whether Wikileaks had more DNC emails, and if so, what they contained.

There is nothing wrong with what Stone did. Mueller charges, rather, that Stone lied to a Congressional committee about his actions. If that is true, Stone is in trouble. But the charges against him do not support the theory that the Trump campaign colluded with Russians to invade the DNC’s email system. On the contrary, the Stone story is just more confirmation that the Trump campaign had nothing to do with it.

It is, however, curious that Stone and Cohen are the only two people in years to be charged with lying to Congress, despite many  opportunities (Clapper, Brennan and Hillary spring to mind).

Now, for what is truly scandalous about Roger Stone’s arrest: the manner in which it was carried out. The arrest was preserved on video because someone–presumably either the FBI or Mueller’s team–tipped off CNN, and CNN had cameras stationed in front of Stone’s residence at 5:00 in the morning. The video shows a dozen heavily armed FBI agents carrying out what can fairly be described as a paramilitary operation against Stone’s home. Why? Was there some reason to think Stone was so dangerous that it required a pre-dawn raid by a dozen agents with AR-15s to take him into custody?

No such claim has been made, nor would it be plausible. The show that Mueller and the FBI put on for the cameras of their political ally, CNN, was a disgrace.

Victory Girls: CNN “Just Happens” To Be On Scene For Roger Stone’s Arrest – Who Tipped Them Off? My guess is Andrew Weissman. EBL, CNN Celebrates It's Own Stone Crab Festival. Jazz Shaw at Hot Air, So The FBI Staged Quite The Show In Arresting Roger Stone. AllahPundit thinks they were playing the odds based on a Grand Jury meeting in  How Did CNN Get Tipped Off To The FBI Raid At Roger Stone’s House? But that wouldn't explain the drawn guns and bullet proof vests.

The FBI had to do a bin Laden-style pre-dawn raid on a guy who was just released on his own recognizance? Ok. https://t.co/bXQVyTlnMZ

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) January 25, 2019

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, Stone Indictment: Conduit Between Wikileaks And Trump Campaign? Mueller would like to imply that. But again, not a crime, even if he did. Are we holding Bruce Ohr, Hillary Clinton, and  Perkins Coie criminal for their passage of Russian material to the DNC? CNBC, alleges that Steve Bannon is the 'high-ranking' Trump official in Roger Stone indictment who asked about future WikiLeaks releases in October 2016.

Jacob Sullum at Reason: Roger Stone Indictment Describes a Cover-Up of a Nonexistent Crime

Credico thought Stone had no one to blame but himself. "You should have just been honest with the house Intel committee," he wrote in an email last May. "You've opened yourself up to perjury charges like an idiot."

It is hard to argue with that assessment. Judging from the indictment, nothing Stone did in connection with WikiLeaks prior to his congressional testimony was illegal. That includes his communications with the Trump campaign, his suggestion that Corsi obtain emails related to the Clinton Foundation from Assange, and his queries to Corsi and Credico about the dirt that WikiLeaks had on Clinton. Even if Stone had actually obtained and shared purloined emails from WikiLeaks (as many news organizations eventually did), it would not have been a crime. Lying to a congressional committee about those noncriminal acts is another matter. Stone's problem, like Michael Flynn's, is not what he did but what he said about what he did.

Quippeth the Instapundit: "When this was happening to Democrats, the press called it a “perjury trap.”" Nice Deb,  Alan Dershowitz Slams 'Typical Mueller Indictment,' Says Crimes 'Generated by the Investigation'

"This is typical of Mueller. He has found almost no crimes that occurred before he was appointed special counsel," Dershowitz explained, adding that Mueller was appointed to find Russian collusion and has "virtually failed in that respect in every regard."

"Almost all of his crimes that he's indicted people for are crimes that resulted from his investigation — false statements, tampering with witnesses, obstruction of justice," Dershowitz pointed out. "These are crimes that are generated by the investigation," which, he noted, "doesn't make them any less criminal."

"But it really means that there's been a failure to uncover the basic crimes for which he was appointed. Namely, before he was appointed, was there illegal collusion, illegal conspiracy with Russia?" Dersh asked.

"We don't find that," the professor declared. "In this indictment, he tells stories about alleged collusion, stories about WikiLeaks, but that's not the basis for the indictment. The basis for the indictment are all events that occurred after he was appointed. That's very significant."

Also the Dersh stating the obvious at WaEx: Dershowitz on Mueller move against Roger Stone: 'Trump is the target'

"The obvious purpose of indicting him on these obstructing and false statement charges is to put pressure on him to flip. That's the goal,” said Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School professor emeritus.

“Will he flip? Nobody knows the answer to that. Michael Cohen said he would take a bullet for the president, and he's become his opponent,” he said. “[Stone] said recently he would never cooperate and testify, and I take him at his word. But when he's told by his lawyer that he's facing essentially spending the rest of his life in prison, you never know what people will do."

More bad news for Stone at Bloomberg,  Roger Stone Draws the Judge Who Threw Paul Manafort in Jail  "U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued a gag order on Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort and later revoked his bail and threw him in jail." And from Da Hill, Former Stone associates indicate willingness to testify against him. "Jerome Corsi and Randy Credico, who have appeared before the grand jury impaneled by special counsel Robert Mueller and provided documents contradicting Stone's congressional testimony, signaled they would serve as witnesses if the case goes to trial."

Ace, who is primarily concerned with turncoat conservatives these days notes that both John Podhoretz and Jonah Goldberg from the National Review are making anal rape jokes about Stone. A Very Principled, Morally Virtuous Cuck Says Some Things

John Podhoretz deleted this tweet (using: Twitter Web Client). #JohnPodhoretz #jpodhoretz #deletedtweet #screenshotbot #sshotbot pic.twitter.com/NxMQ2qiMYI

— Screenshot Bot (@sshotbot) January 25, 2019

National Review Now Doing Forcible Gay Prison Anal Rape Comedy Routines. "Yes, moral scold and plagiarist Jonah Goldberg is now plagiarizing Fellow Fatty John Podhoretz's prison rape gags about Roger Stone." In which Jonah writes (after the gay sex stuff):

Moreover, lying to Congress and witness tampering are bad, too. That these are the charges Mueller is leveling at Stone lends credence to the appointment of Mueller in the first place. People are correct when they say that Congress is the proper venue for such investigations. But since Congress seemed uninterested in pursuing or exposing these lies, who else but Mueller was going to do it?

No, no, no! A thousand times No! Mueller was not appointed to find crimes that were generated after his appointment by the very acts of his own investigation. And curiously the Justice Department, under which Mueller is operating, also seems quite incurious about all the other instances of lying, leaking and obstruction that have taken place with the Hillary campaign, the DNC, the FBI and the DOJ itself.

Rule 5 Saturday - Brande Nicole Roderick

This week's Rule 5 special features Brande Nicole Roderick

Brande Nicole Roderick (born June 13, 1974) is an American model and actress known for her appearances in Baywatch and Playboy.

In 2000, Roderick starred as Leigh Dyer in Baywatch. In April 2000, she appeared in Playboy magazine as Playmate of the Month. In 2001, Roderick became the Playmate of the Year. In 2003, she starred in the Bollywood movie Out of Control, as the American wife of an Indian man (played by Riteish Deshmukh) who, on a visit to India, gets pressured by his family into marrying an Indian girl.

 That David Hasselhoff sure knew how to pick 'em.

Other recent film credits include Starsky & Hutch, Snoop Dogg's Hood of Horror, Club Wild Side 2 and The Nanny Diaries. In addition, she has guest-starred in Joey, The Parkers, Just Shoot Me!, Fear Factor and Beverly Hills, 90210.

As of 2008, Roderick had a networking company named Financially Hung.  She described the company as being "like MySpace for adults." Roderick runs the online fantasy gaming website FantaZ. She also has a business partnership with Adam Levine of Maroon 5 in the Italian designer shoe label Pantofola d'Oro.

Roderick was born in Novato, California, and attended Santa Rosa Junior College. She dated the late Playboy founder Hugh Hefner from 2000 to 2001 and was also romantically linked to former NFL quarterback Cade McNown. In August 2006, she became engaged to Glenn Cadrez, a former NFL linebacker who played 11 seasons for the Denver Broncos, the New York Jets and the Kansas City Chiefs. The couple married in June 2007, and had their first child in March 2010.

Another attempt to breed the perfect human.

A few of the many NSFW pics from the good old days available on line.

Linked at Pirate's Cove in the weekly Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup and links. The Wombat was a little late with Rule 5 Monday: Elizabeth Pipko and FMJRA 2.0: Abrasive Flow Machining this week. Linked in Rule 5 Saturday LinkOrama at The Right Way