Happy Fourth, Fellow Fascists

From Stacy, Happy Fourth of July, You Fascists!

The Democrats are now a party of paranoid conspiracy theorists:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said in a new interview that she believes the United States is heading in a fascist direction under President Trump.

“Are we headed to fascism? Yes. I don’t think there’s a question,” Ocasio-Cortez told Yahoo News earlier this week after she visited migrant detention facilities managed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
“If you actually take the time to study, and to look at the steps, and to see how government transforms under authoritarian regimes, and look at the political decisions and patterns of this president, the answer is yes.”

They define fascism as “whenever Democrats lose elections,” and therefore when Ocasio-Cortez says we are “headed to fascism,” what she means is that Trump will be re-elected. After all, Democrats believe the Betsy Ross flag is a symbol of “white supremacy,” so we shouldn’t be surprised that they consider patriotism a synonym for “hate.”

With respect to the Betsy Ross flag thing, I just commented this morning how it seems to be a requirement among the progressive intelligentsia that you must believe at least one new and completely stupid thing every day, directions for which come down from the masters in the media. Today, the Betsy Ross flag is a symbol of "white supremacy" because Colin Kaepernick said so, and  the media joined in. But not only that, but you must believe it too, or you are a racist, or a fascist or a white supremacist, which ever they need for the moment. In reality, course, those labels have been all worn out by over use. The number of true racists, fascists and white supremacists left in the US is vanishingly small.

What is happening here? What explains the hysterical rhetoric coming from Democrats and their media allies this Fourth of July?

They’re living inside an imaginary universe where CNN is “mainstream” journalism, instead of an obscure cable TV channel with fewer viewers than HGTV and Nickelodeon, where Oberlin College is a reputable institution, where transgenderism is more acceptable than patriotism:

The Left’s hysteria over Trump’s victory in 2016 has escalated into something quite beyond mere hysteria. Now the leftists are well and truly dangerous. Antifa, the fascist organization that protests anything and everything with which it disagrees, is violent, very violent. These people show up with weapons, wearing masks, and attack anyone they perceive to be in opposition to their own warped ideology.
CNN has long defended the group as good guys, social justice warriors. That is how off the rails CNN is. Like Antifa, CNN is officially and openly anti-American.

In a nation with a two-party politicial (sic) system, where each party has roughly equal levels of core support, but where one party’s strength is concentrated in urban enclaves, we should expect this kind of derangement whenever the urban party loses elections. If you live in New York, San Francisco, or Portland, Oregon, you are immersed in a community where 80% of people vote Democrat, and where Republican voters aren’t likely to speak up about their political beliefs, since doing so would make them targets of hatred. This echo-chamber effect is compounded by the fact that most of the people who produce media — not just journalism, but also entertainment — are members of the same urban Democrat community.

Also known as the Pauline Kael effect.  "I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don't know. They're outside my ken. But sometimes when I'm in a theater I can feel them." Much the way Peter Strzok could smell the Trump supporters in a southern Virginia Walmart.

Why do you think Democrats are freaking out because President Trump wanted some tanks in the Fourth of July parade? Because the U.S. military symbolizes everything they hate about America. They hate to be reminded that what happened on July 4, 1776, was the publication of our Declaration of Independence, but it was not the words on parchment which made America free. No, we are free because of the service and sacrifice of men whose names are not famous, who marched barefoot through the snow to Trenton, who suffered at Valley Forge, who died in battle against the “elite” troops of the British Empire. America is independent not because of the Declaration, but because courageous men were willing to fight and die for their freedom.

Probably not quite true. The Democratic party certainly has many military vets and current military, and they don't uniformly hate the military, although some prominent leaders certainly give off that aura. No, the reason they are freaking out about Trump's plans for the 4th in Washington is because that's all they've got, opposition to Trump in everything.

If Trump were to swear the sky was blue, they would find an expert to declare it is green, has always been green, and if you weren't so deplorable you'd agree it was green too.

Red, White, Blue Fish

Linked at Pirate's Cove in the weekly Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup and links. The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Cynthia Kirchner up on time and within budget.

Your Annual July 4th Scolding

By way of William Teach's Pirate's Cove, Typical Barbecue Is Just As Bad As A 90 Mile Fossil Fueled Trip Or Something

In other words, there’s zero problem, but, hey, Warmist nags have to be Warmist nags

Typical barbecue is as bad for the planet as a 90 mile car journey, scientists warn

A typical barbecue releases as much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere as a 90-mile car journey, scientists have found.
The study found that red meat such as burgers were the worst culprit – causing nearly five times as much damage as one portion of chicken.
Adding cream to strawberries doubled the amount of greenhouse gas released, scientists said.
Manchester University experts calculated the impact of a typical barbecue meal based around beefburgers, before comparing it with a chicken-based meal, or a vegan option.

Their analysis found the burger meal, topped with cheese, would create more than 800 balloons worth of greenhouse gas emissions for a family of four – equivalent to a 90 mile drive in a typical car.
If the same family swapped the burgers for chicken, the emissions dropped dramatically – to the equivalent of 51 miles.
And those opting for vegetarian sausages, and cutting out extras like cheese and butter, saw their carbon footprint fall still lower, down to 33 miles per family.

Can these people be any more annoying? They can just mind their own business. Try yammering about this in the South and they’re lucky if the only phrase they hear is “bless your heart.” Keep going, and the next discussion involves what highways travel where. See, it’s funny that these same people want the Government out of our bedrooms (code for unfettered abortion) yet want the Government in every other aspect of our lives.

Well, they could nag about plastic bags, straws and disposable plastic cups, plates and cutlery, I suppose. Oh wait, they already do.

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Cynthia Kirchner up on time and within budget.

It's the Water, and a Whole Lot More

Including graft. Flint To Rescind Lead Pipe Contract From Lowest Bidder And Award It To Politically-Connected Firm, Delaying Fixes

For the second time, the city of Flint, Michigan, is poised to reject the results of its contract bidding process after an experienced local firm provided the lowest offer.

“This is unethical, it is bid rigging, and I certainly won’t be a part of this,” city Councilwoman Eva Worthing said during a Tuesday meeting. “Does council and the city want to deal with a lawsuit over unfair bidding practices by this city? This is favoritism, cronyism … This is basically a sham, it’s unethical, and if council votes [to rescind this contract we signed], we’re in trouble.”

Residents may have to wait six months longer for repairs because WT Stevens — the company owned by the wife of a former NBA player and which Worthing suspects may have a corrupt relationship with Flint politicos — is still months behind schedule on finishing the last water contract the city gave it, the low-bidding company, Goyette Mechanical, said.

WT Stevens  President Wanda Grayer 

I thought this was important!

“The mayor wants us to take away Goyette’s bid and just give it to WT Stevens,” Worthing said during the meeting.

On Monday, Mayor Karen Weaver’s administration abruptly said it would rescind the $12 million contract from Goyette Mechanical, a local firm with 90 years of experience that specializes specifically in municipal water. On Tuesday, it asked the city council to approve the move, but uproar from multiple factions of the city council led to discussions being tabled until July 8.

The city of less than 100,000 has collected more than $647 million in state and federal aid for what is often described as a public health emergency. But when the money reaches City Hall, officials have repeatedly made decisions that have severely slowed the progress of fixing the water pipes, decisions that have had the side effect of sending more money to WT Stevens’ coffers.

Mayor Karen Weaver and city Councilman Eric Mays have bragged that WT Stevens is black-owned, with Mays saying Flint “broke records for giving black folks money.” Goyette is white-owned.

A majority of the city council members joined against Mays and the mayor to vote against abruptly reversing the decision to strip Goyette of the contract.

Independence Day Russiagate

John Solomon analyzes his interview with Oleg Deripaska, the Russian oligarch, in the matter of various aspects of Russiagate in Russian oligarch's story could spell trouble for Team Mueller

OK, so why should you care if a Russian denied Trump campaign collusion with Russia during the election?

First, Deripaska wasn’t just any Russian. He was closely aligned with Putin and had been helpful to the FBI as far back as 2009. So he had earned some trust with the agents.

Most importantly, Deripaska’s interview with the FBI reportedly was never provided by Team Mueller to Manafort’s lawyers, even though it was potential proof of innocence, according to Manafort defense lawyer Kevin Downing. Manafort, initially investigated for collusion, was convicted on tax and lobbying violations unrelated to the Russia case.

That omission opens a possible door for appeal for what is known as a Brady violation, for hiding exculpatory information from a defendant.

That sounds like a Weissman specialty, hiding exculpatory information.

Deripaska’s second relevance to Mueller’s congressional hearings has to do with a series of events that first gained him trust inside the FBI.

Deripaska confirmed a story I reported last year from FBI sources that he spent more than $20 million of his own money between 2009 and 2011 on a private rescue operation to free Robert Levinson, a retired FBI agent captured in Iran in 2007 while on a CIA mission.

Deripaska confirmed he paid for the operation at the request of the FBI, which was then under Mueller’s direction. And he added that McCabe, then a rising FBI supervisor who was a former colleague of Levinson and later became a key figure in the Russia collusion probe, was one of those who asked him to help.

“I was approached, you know, by someone that he is under a lot of scrutiny now — McCabe,” Deripaska said. “He also said that it was important enough for all of them [FBI officials]. And I kind of trusted them.”
. . .
Deripaska’s tale has the potential to raise questions about a conflict of interest, since Mueller’s FBI first received a gift in the form of the privately funded rescue mission before Mueller, as special prosecutor, investigated Deripaska’s ties to key figures in the Russia case.

And Deripaska’s complicated tale goes on: His legal team in 2012 hired Steele, the former British MI6 agent, to do some research for a lawsuit involving a business rival that Deripaska was fighting in London: “It was a research project to support what was the case against me in London. But my understanding is that the lawyers trusted him for some reason, and he was for quite a time on retainer.”

Deripaska was unaware, though, that Steele also was working for the FBI on, among other things, a special program to recruit Russian oligarchs to provide intelligence on Putin and Russian organized crime.

He told me that Steele invited him to a September 2015 meeting with some Justice Department officials, under the guise that they might be able to help with the Russian’s long-running battle with State to get visas to visit the U.S. He said the offer to help with his visa problem was a “pretext” to recruit him.

“They actually never talk, you know, about the [visa] problem. They start talking about anything else. They ask, ‘Do you have anything? Give me names. Cases, whatever,’ ” Deripaska recalled.

From Bloomberg, A Reluctant Mueller Is Democrats’ Best Shot to Revive Their Trump Investigations

“It’s a big deal. But it also could be a big letdown,” Samuel Everett Dewey, a former congressional lawyer who led investigations in key committees in both the House and Senate, said of Mueller’s testimony.

Dewey said the high-profile event would backfire for Democrats if it becomes another in a series of anti-climactic episodes in their probes. Promises of public hearings have vaporized into canceled testimony and empty witness chairs, or acquiescence to closed-door interviews with ground rules set by the administration.

Lawmakers will break for a six-week summer recess from Washington a week after Mueller testifies. If they find the public’s takeaway from Mueller’s appearance when they go home to their districts is “OK, nothing new here,” Dewey said, lawmakers could find dwindling inspiration to push toward impeachment.

Why Hollywood Can't Quit The Mueller Report, they love their fiction.

Hollywood collectively assumed Special Counsel Robert Mueller would prove President Donald Trump colluded with Russian agents to steal the 2016 presidential election from Hillary Clinton. Even worse, Trump did everything he could to obstruct the fight to learn the truth.
. . .
Stars waited anxiously for Mueller’s final report, with one star lighting a votive candle with his likeness.

The report finally arrived April 18. The results? No collusion, no obstruction of justice after a nearly 18-month long investigation which cost north of $31 million to complete.

The industry’s players couldn’t believe what they heard. It’s a lie, they cried. Some, like director Rob Reiner, acted as if The Mueller Report said exactly what he expected, nay hoped, it would say.

Others slowly followed suit.

Louie Gomert has a special name for Mueller,  Rep. Gohmert Gives Mueller A New Nickname Prior To The Special Counsel's Congressional Testimony

Although Gohmert read Mueller's full report, it did little to tame the animosity he has towards the Special Counsel.

“It reinforced the anal opening that I believe Mueller to be."

CNS News  Ratcliffe: DOJ IG Has Finished His Investigation, But Report Not Expected for Weeks



Judicial Watch, Former Asst. Sec. of State for Diplomatic Security Testifies Under Oath that He Warned Hillary Clinton Twice About Unsecure BlackBerrys and Personal Emails and Former State Official Testifies He Warned State Department Officials about Clinton Email Issues; Concerned about Interference on Classified Clinton Benghazi Email Documents

WaFreeBe: Official Raised Alarm About Deleted Clinton Emails

Hackett: I recall it wasn't much of a conversation. I—I was—I mean, I have to say, it was emphatic to the Under Secretary of Management—and I didn't speak in tones like that very often to him—you know, that we needed these—you know, the guidelines.
… …
Judicial Watch: Why did you feel so strongly that this was necessary, that they provide this information?

Hackett: Well, we heard that there were 50,000 or 60,000 emails, and that they had—"they" being the Secretary's team—had culled out 30,000 of these. And which is—so we wanted to know what criteria they used. The standard from the National Archives is very strict. If there was—if there were mixed records, that would be considered a federal record. If it was mixed personal and mentioned a discussion, that would be—under the narrow National Archives rules, it would be considered a federal record.

Judicial Watch: And do you know if the emails that were returned by Secretary Clinton and her attorneys, if they followed that guideline to include an email that would include mixed information, personal and official?

Hackett: I don't know.

Lock. Her. Up!

Happy Fourth of July!

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Cynthia Kirchner up on time and within budget.

DNA Ties Philistines to the Greeks

Caravaggio - David with the head of Goliath

Scholars say Philistine genes help solve biblical mystery

Goliath the Greek? Human remains from an ancient cemetery in southern Israel have yielded precious bits of DNA that a new study says help prove the European origin of the Philistines — the enigmatic nemeses of the biblical Israelites.

The Philistines mostly resided in five cities along the southern coast of what is today Israel and the Gaza Strip during the early Iron Age, around 3,000 years ago. In the Bible, David fought the Philistine giant Goliath in a duel, and Samson slew a thousand of their warriors with the jawbone of an ass.

Many archaeologists have proposed they migrated to the coast of the ancient Near East during a period of upheaval at the end of the Late Bronze Age, around 1200 B.C.

Rubens - Samson and Delilah

I remember hearing that years ago, probably when, as a teenager, I read all of Will and Ariel Durant's The Story of Civilization

The Philistines emerged as other societies around the eastern Mediterranean collapsed, possibly because of a cataclysmic intersection of climate change and man-made disasters. Philistine ceramics bear similarities to styles found in the Aegean, but concrete evidence of their geographic origins has remained elusive.

Now, a study of genetic material extracted from skeletons unearthed in the Israeli coastal city of Ashkelon in 2013 has found a DNA link. It connects the Philistines to populations in southern Europe during the Bronze Age.

Dyck van Antoon - Samson and Delilah 

The study, spearheaded by researchers from Germany’s Max Planck Institute and Wheaton College in Illinois, was published Wednesday in the research journal Science Advances.

The biblical account relates that the Philistines originally hailed from a distant isle. An Egyptian temple built by Rameses III bears reliefs of battles with “Sea Peoples” who appeared on the shores of the eastern Mediterranean. One group listed in the Egyptian text is strikingly similar to the Hebrew name for Philistines. Excavations of Philistine sites have found ceramics and architecture that differed from those of their neighbors in ancient Canaan.

Gustav Dore - David and Goliath

But archaeologists can’t be absolutely certain that different pots mean different people.

Eric Cline, an archaeologist from George Washington University specializing in the Late Bronze Age in the Near East, said conclusive evidence has eluded scientists until now — even if the material remains have indicated that the Philistines migrated to the Levant from the Aegean around 1200 B.C.

Cline, who was not involved in the study, is the author of “1177 BC: The Year Civilization Collapsed,” which examines the period when the Philistines arrived. He called the paper’s findings “extremely exciting and very important” by helping resolve the long-standing mystery about their origins.

Cheap and reliable DNA sequencing is revolutionizing  history.

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Cynthia Kirchner up on time and within budget.

Megalodon Gets A Makeover

Reimagining the Megalodon, the World’s Most Terrifying Sea Creature

When I reached the world’s pre-eminent sculptor of long-dead monsters, he was standing atop a ladder inside a 16-foot-tall section of a megalodon tail that was propped upright in his warehouse-size studio. “I’m sorry if it sounds like I’m inside a bathroom,” Gary Staab said on his cellphone. The tail was part of a 52-foot-long, life-size model of the prehistoric shark that Staab was custom-building for the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History.

The mighty megalodon, terror of the ancient oceans, could grow to 60 feet long, with a mouth stretching more than 9 feet wide and a bite-force stronger than any other creature ever, living or dead. The violent damage it caused to its prey, and the rows of serrated teeth, have given the shark the reputation of an enormous prehistoric Jaws—“a great white on steroids,” says Hans Sues, chair of paleobiology at the museum.

In fact, Sues says, evidence suggests that megalodons, which lived between 23 million and 3.6 million years ago, were more closely related to modern mako sharks than to great whites, giving them more slender bodies than great whites and a bronzy back befitting a predator that preferred coastal waters.

Plentiful megalodon teeth (and a number of calcified vertebrae) have been found in ancient seafloors that are now exposed—in the cliffs along the Chesapeake Bay, for example. Those fossils were all Staab was going to get: Like modern sharks, the megalodon’s skeleton was made from cartilage, which decomposes. So to design the model, he and his museum collaborators used a formula that extrapolates from tooth length and the body geometry of modern relatives, and found that his shark would be 24 feet across the front fins. “That’s the size of a Cessna,” he told me.

I wouldn't exactly call them plentiful, but certainly there are a few, and if you look long and hard enough you're likely to stumble over one here and there. Why, just today, a I found a small "fragalodon", a small piece of a Megalodon tooth.

To bring the shark to life, Staab then hand-sculpted a detailed, six-foot-long clay model, laser-scanned the sculpture and milled 386 foam pieces that, when assembled, became a full-scale prototype (the foam itself being too flammable for museum display). Next he fabricated 21 fiberglass panels on top of that, with interior ribs that aligned and bolted together.

In April, the model was broken down and trucked from Staab’s studio in Kearney, Missouri, to Washington, D.C. On the museum floor, Staab reassembled the behemoth from the inside before crawling out a section in the tail. The shark was touched up with epoxy and fresh paint and raised 85 feet in the air to hang, menacingly, above museum visitors dining in a new café.

Natural History is my favorite museum, and this might just be a reason to visit. Meanwhile, here's Georgia standing behind the old Meg jaws at Natural History a few years ago:

A Brief Bit of Russiagate

Approaching the Fourth of July lull, not too much, but one big one. Ace, Russian Oligarch and Putin Pal Oleg Deripaska Admits He Hired Christopher Steele, on Camera

So, if you're keeping track. Putin "interfered" in the election and made Trump President.

But, simultaneously, Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch connected to Putin, hired Christopher Steele to assemble an anti-Trump dossier of fake claims which was pushed to the American media before the 2016 election.

Sure.

John Solomon did the heavy lifting for Da Hill:



I got yer Russian collusion! Deripaska is an interesting character who shows up numerous times in the Russiagate story.

From Sundance at CTH, Representative Ratcliffe: “Horowitz Investigative Work is Complete”…

If previous reports of Christopher Steele being willing to speak to U.S. authorities about his dossier work in 2016 are accurate; and if Horowitz has completed his investigative work; then it’s likely Horowitz has already interviewed Steele.

The IG FISA investigation began in May of 2018, approximately 14 months ago. The assembly of the investigative details into a draft report should be expected to take about four to six weeks depending on the OIG referencer team and the scale of the summary documentation assembled.

However, a concerning aspect to Ratcliffe’s comments surrounds the 20% of the report stated to be “classified”. I am very suspicious of this statement.

One of the hopeful objectives projected upon President Trump granting AG Bill Barr the authority to declassify information, was the possibility this would allow AG Barr to remove the classification concerns within the IG report. If 20% is indeed classified, those projected hopes are considerably diminished and we should modify expectations accordingly.

One of the most consistent tools used by the DOJ and FBI to bury their institutional corruption has been the use of classification to hide damaging material. While the information from Ratcliffe is obviously limited it sounds like the DOJ and FBI will have an opportunity to continue hiding information.

Sundance also takes note of WaPoo's sudden interest in the Mysterious Mr. Mifsud in CIA Seems Highly Concerned – Washington Post Reports on Sketchy Joseph Mifsud…

A long tracked history and pattern reflects the DOJ and FBI leak their needs to the New York Times. The preferred outlet for the U.S. State Department is CNN; and the Washington Post generally comes out first in defense of the CIA agenda. This pattern has been remarkably consistent for years.


So against a backdrop of looming revelations about the intelligence community and their activity in the 2016 election; and suddenly The Washington Post, seemingly out of nowhere, pushes an article intended to diffuse the issues around western intelligence asset Joseph Mifsud; we can reasonably assume something is happening in the background that has officials in the CIA worried about exposure and their image.

From the WaPo introduction we can see what part of “spygate” the CIA is concerned about:

(Wa Po) […] The Maltese-born academic has not surfaced publicly since that October 2017 interview, days after Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos pleaded guilty tolying to the FBI about details of their interactions. Among them, Papadopoulos told investigators, was an April 2016 meeting in which Mifsud alerted him that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.”
The conversation between Mifsud and Papadopoulos, eventually relayed by an Australian diplomat to U.S. government officials, was cited by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III as the event that set in motion the FBI probe into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
With Attorney General William P. Barr’s review of the counterintelligence investigation underway,the origins of the inquiry itself are now in the spotlight — and with them, the role of Mifsud, a little-known figure. (more)

The entire WaPo article is fraught with highly manipulated narrative engineering intended to cloud the fact that clear evidence exists that Professor Mifsud’s engagement with George Papadopoulos was directed by some entity other than Mifsud. And it would be intellectually dishonest not to see some other purpose and intent beyond an academic wanting to build a relationship with some obscure policy staffer for the Trump campaign.

If he walks like a counterintelligence agent; acts like a counterintelligence agent; sounds like a counterintelligence agent; hangs out with other counterintelligence agents; has admitted to engagements on behalf of intelligence agencies; trained U.S. FBI agents in conducting counterintelligence operations and generally has a history of counterintelligence agent behavior, well, he ain’t just a Maltese professor. Just sayin’.

And your new 30 day pass to the WaPoo.

15 Year Old Beats Venus

Serena and Coco shake hands after the match

It's good to see some new blood in women's tennis, not that there was anything wrong with the old blood: 'I'm literally living my dream': US 15-year-old Coco Gauff reveals how she wept 'for the first time since Ironman died in End Game' after BEATING Venus Williams, 39, to make history at Wimbledon

The 15-year-old schoolgirl who beat her idol Venus Williams at Wimbledon has said she is 'literally living my dream right now'.

Cori 'Coco' Gauff, 15, claimed victory against the seven-time Grand Slam singles winner, 39, on No. 1 court today - less than a week after finishing her exams. She beat the tennis legend, who had won four of her Grand Slam titles before she was even born, winning 6-4 6-4.

Now, can she beat the sister?

Speaking after the electrifying match, an emotional Gauff revealed her friends and family are ecstatic - including her coach and father Corey.

She said: 'I know [my parents] are super happy, my dad was just jumping up every time I won a point. I'm just so happy and blessed that they really just spent all their time on me and my brothers and making sure that we're successful.'

Coco has an interesting "concentration face"

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Cynthia Kirchner up on time and within budget.

Ebola in Texas?

Maybe, Texas Medical Professional: Migrants Quarantined with UNKNOWN Disease, 10-Year Old Girl Found With 20 Types of Semen In Her

A medical professional on the border in Texas told Big League Politics that the crisis is reaching fever pitch, with three individuals now quarantined at a privately-owned hospital in El Paso with an unknown disease. The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has not even been able to identify the disease the three migrants have, as the military guards the quarantine area.

“There were some Congolese people caught crossing the border, it was suspected they had Ebola. In one facility there are three patients being held because they don’t know what they have. The CDC have been here to assess them. They are isolated, they only have certain specialists who can see them,” the medical professional tells Big League Politics.

“We’ve had an outbreak of mumps over here.”

“What scares me is what happens if someone comes over here with Ebola. We only need one person, and there’s a pandemic.”

Let's be optimistic. It might not be Ebola. It could by Lassa Fever, Marburg Fever or MERS.

As for the second part of the title, that makes me skeptical, but human indecency has unplumbed depths.

Two Day Beach Report

Some beach pics from yesterday and today. Yesterday was wonderful, topping out at 81, while even with an early start we finished at 90 this morning

Russiagate Revived

Well, that's more like it, although I expect a similar lull over the July 4th holiday.

From Eric Felten, RCI, Insinuendo: Why the Mueller Report Doth Repeat So Much

From the first page of his report, the special counsel is eager to establish the narrative that that Papadopoulos, not Steele, sparked the initial investigation. Mueller writes that in May 2016 “Papadopoulos had suggested to a representative of [a] foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”

But it’s not enough to say it once. Come page 6, Mueller writes, “Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton.”

Mueller repeats this claim nearly word for word again on pages 81, 89, and 93.

At least page 192 offers a hint of variation: The FBI “approached Papadopoulos for an interview” because of “his suggestion to a foreign government representative that Russia had indicated that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton.”

You mean when they arrested him at the airport coming into the country, looking for $10,000+ that they had arranged to give him, to subsequently charge him with lying to the FBI about some date that they probably didn't let him refresh his memory on, which charge was so severe it subsequently resulted in a two week jail sentence? That "approach"?

Such relentless repetition might be dismissed as lazy cut-and-paste writing. But repetition is an ancient and effective tool of rhetoric. The Greeks called it epimone; the Romans, commoratio. It can be used subtly and powerfully, as in “Brutus is an honorable man," or it can be employed in a clumsy effort to pound home a weak claim, as in “Papadopoulos suggested…that the Trump Campaign…”
What makes the claim weak?

The problem starts with “Papadopoulos suggested.” What exactly did he say? “Suggested” implies he expressed himself indirectly. The report’s use of that squishy verb all six times it refers to the conversation is an admission that Papadopoulos did not directly make the explosive claim that allegedly spurred the FBI into action.

The next part of the sentence is not only vague, but misleading – “Papadopoulos suggested … that the Trump campaign had received indications.”

This implies that information allegedly given to Papadopoulos – an adviser to the campaign – was shared with the entire campaign. This is especially misleading because the report later says it found no evidence that Papadopoulos told anyone else on the campaign about the emails.

And then there’s the descriptor “received indications,” which is even more amorphous than “suggested.” An “indication” could be anything from a light flashing Morse code to one of the grifters in “The Sting” putting a finger to the side of his nose. If Papadopoulos was told something, why not simply write he “was told”? The downside of the simple construction, from a prosecutor’s point of view, is that it lacks the implication that something furtive and sneaky is going on. “Receiving indications” by contrast, sounds suitably shady.

Where did those indications come from? The “Russian government,” according to the special counsel’s report. Finally, a precise and concrete claim. Unfortunately, it is also false. The source of his information was Joseph Mifsud, whom the special counsel describes as a “London-based professor who had connections to Russia and traveled to Moscow in April 2016.” There is a difference between someone with unspecified “connections to Russia” and the “Russian government.”

I quoted so much so I could get to the part about the Mysterious Mr. Mifsud. Out of the blue, as someone on Althouse commented, the WaPoo, (30 day link) has a front page article ‘The enigma of the entire Mueller probe’: Focus on origins of Russian investigation puts spotlight on Maltese professor on the vanishing academic, trying hard to make the case that the Mueller has some justification for calling the perfessor a Russian agent, which amounts to "our CIA contacts (John Brennan) told us so,
swearsies!

In Mifsud’s absence, a number of President Trump’s allies and advisers have been floating a provocative theory: that the Maltese professor was a Western intelligence plant.

Seizing on the vacuum of information about him, they have promoted the idea that he was working for the FBI, CIA or possibly British or Italian intelligence, citing exaggerated and at times distorted details about his life.

Trump attorney Rudolph Giuliani told Fox News in April that Mifsud was a “counterintelligence operative, either Maltese or Italian,” who took part in what sounded to him like a “counterintelligence trap” against Papadopoulos.

Spokeswomen for the FBI, Justice Department and CIA declined to comment, as did a spokesman for Italy’s Security Intelligence Department.

Such a notion runs counter to the description of Mifsud in the Mueller report, which states Mifsud “had connections to Russia” and “maintained various Russian contacts,” including a former employee of the Internet Research Agency, the Russian organization that carried out a social media disinformation campaign in 2016.

Former FBI director James B. Comey, in an opinion column for The Washington Post in May, described Mifsud bluntly as “a Russian agent.”

If he was a Russian agent, he was the most public spy ever.  Streif at Red State comments The CIA Hits The Panic Button Over Joseph Mifsud As Barr’s Investigation Moves Ahead

How, if Mifsud is a suspected Russian spy, does he show up at these invitation-only affairs? Why was Mifsud casually questioned by the FBI in the lobby of his hotel? How did they treat other foreign nationals Mueller wished to question?
. . .
If Mifsud was a suspected Russian agent, then allowing him the access to the venues where he regularly appeared is a scandal of epic proportions.

The best interpretation of this article is that the CIA knows Mifsud’s exposure as an agent of a Western intelligence agency is going to happen. Then they are going to be left to explain how bogus information fed to Papadopoulos by a friendly intelligence agency was used to bolster the case for a special counsel to investigate a sitting president. There probably isn’t a real good explanation beyond what is here in the article, which is “well, we thought he looked fishy” and hoping that no one notices the very real coincidences that connect Mifsud and friendly intelligence agencies.

So, it looks like something is up with Mifsud. At best, Mifsud is still a mystery, and I hope Barr's investigation clear it up.

Some links via Red Pill Jew's QUICK HITS: June 30, 2019

Ex-CIA Agent: Those Who Planned Coup Against Trump Are About To Be Indicted. Take the time to get the cases tight, but… indict and squeeeeze. This goes all the way to Barackus, we know it does.

Handling Mueller Ditto. Give him the same treatment as he gave Corsi. Hours of questioning, without relief.

Breaking Video: Jimmy Carter Says Trump Is an Illegitimate President Put in Office by Russia Carter, the worst President since Barackus, needs to just STFU.

Politico worries that Trump's House allies lie in wait for Mueller

Many House Republicans on the committees set to interview him have actually supported Mueller in the past, even if they've criticized his Russia investigation; they've sought to separate the man — a senior Justice Department appointee dating to the George H.W. Bush administration and Marine Corps veteran — from the probe.

But Mueller will also face a grilling from Trump's top Republican allies in Congress, including Reps. Jim Jordan (Ohio), Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Devin Nunes (Calif.) and Andy Biggs (Ariz.). They intend to press him on long-held articles of Trumpian faith: that Mueller's team was biased against the president from the start and that the Russia investigation was tainted by inappropriate surveillance.

Da Beast is even more hyperbolic, Team Trump’s Game Plan to Destroy Mueller: Hound Him About ‘FBI Lovers’. Page and Strzok certainly deserve a question or two, but they're hardly the only hitch in Mueller's giddy-up. From the Never-Trump Bulwark The American Public Needs to Hear These 10 Things from Robert Mueller . But sadly for them, and never-Trumper Allah Pundit, Poll: Plurality Of Republicans Believe The Mueller Report Totally Exonerated Trump On Obstruction Of Justice. Please remember, the goal of a prosecutor is not to exonerate, it is to find sufficient evidence to indict, or shut up. It's clear Trump did some things that Weismann didn't like, like get elected. That doesn't make it obstruction of justice. And the Atlantic (the digital magazine, not the ocean), Why Bill Barr Is So Dangerous, "He is using the office he holds to advance his extraordinary lifetime project of assigning unchecked power to the president." And besides, he might be looking into the nasty and illegal things our side did prior to and after Trump's election.

EBL asks Can Sidney Powell Save Michael Flynn?. If his conviction is overturned for prosectorial misconduct, the whole Jenga tower could collapse.

Things to Consider BEFORE You Sell

Taylor Swift Paints Scooter Braun as Manipulative Bully as Big Machine Sells Her Catalog - "Halsey says she's "standing with" Swift, saying "it turns my guts" that female stars are "still susceptible to someone coming along and making you feel powerless out of spite."" Mind you, I have no idea who Scooter Braun is, and only slightly more knowledge of Halsey.

Taylor Swift has described herself as “sad and grossed out” by Scooter Braun’s acquisition of Big Machine Records, which holds the rights to her entire catalog up through 2017’s “Reputation,” calling the deal “my worst case scenario.” Swift said she was shocked to first learn of the transfer of her work through news accounts Sunday morning. Braun declined Variety‘s requests for comment.

You know, when I sell a used car, I don't ask what the new owners intend to do with it.

Swift posted her impassioned reaction in a Tumblr post, which reads:

“For years I asked, pleaded for a chance to own my work. Instead I was given an opportunity to sign back up to Big Machine Records and ‘earn’ one album back at a time, one for every new one I turned in. I walked away because I knew once I signed that contract, Scott Borchetta would sell the label, thereby selling me and my future. I had to make the excruciating choice to leave behind my past. Music I wrote on my bedroom floor and videos I dreamed up and paid for from the money I earned playing in bars, then clubs, then arenas, then stadiums.

What a rough life you've had. You should ask for refugee status in Canada.

“This is my worst case scenario. This is what happens when you sign a deal at fifteen to someone for whom the term ‘loyalty’ is clearly just a contractual concept. And when that man says ‘Music has value’, he means its value is beholden to men who had no part in creating it.

“When I left my masters in Scott’s hands, I made peace with the fact that eventually he would sell them. Never in my worst nightmares did I imagine the buyer would be Scooter. Any time Scott Borchetta has heard the words ‘Scooter Braun’ escape my lips, it was when I was either crying or trying not to. He knew what he was doing; they both did. Controlling a woman who didn’t want to be associated with them. In perpetuity. That means forever.

Halsey

Presumably, you sold the rights to those works for a reason; probably both to further promote your career (which has done quite spectacularly, I'd like to point out), and also for money, (which again, has done remarkably well, making Taylor the  the among the richest self made women under 40, with a net worth of $350 million). We should all make such rotten deals.

Halsey posted support for Swift on Twitter later Sunday, writing, “Taylor Swift is a huge reason why I always insisted to write my own music. I believed if she did it (in a way that made my teeth ache like cold water and my heart swell and my eyes leak) than I should too. Cause that’s how to make someone feel. To drag it from the pits of your heart. To offer it on a platter and say ‘take some but take kindly.’ She deserves to own the painstaking labor of her heart. And it turns my guts that no matter how much power or success a woman has in this life, you are still susceptible to someone coming along and making you feel powerless out of spite. It speaks volumes to how far we have to come in the music industry. The way writers are treated. How as an entertainer you are respected but as a writer you’re walked all over. Even when you are both in one single body. I am standing with her.”

I, myself, as an author of scientific works have sold the rights to my works numerous times. It was done to advance my career, much as her sale was, and while I'm not worth $350 million, it helped enough that I could retire comfortably before my physical and mental decline dictated it.

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Cynthia Kirchner up on time and within budget.

I Call BS

Maryland estimate for seawalls against rising tides: $27 billion

A third bridge to get more cars and trucks across the Chesapeake Bay, wider highways to move traffic along the Capital Beltway — those might be the ambitions of Maryland’s road-warrior governor, but they are fanciful luxuries compared to what could be the major infrastructure demand facing the state in the decades ahead: Seawalls to protect thousands of homes, businesses and farmlands, from Ocean City to Baltimore, at a cost of more than $27 billion.

And that’s a modest estimate based on moderate sea-level rise, according to a study from a team of engineers and geodata specialists who examined climate-change trends along the U.S. coast.

Ten Chesapeake counties could face the biggest seawall expenses before 2040 — $6.5 billion in Dorchester alone, the report says — and that does not include the costs of adapting or building new stormwater and drinking water systems. It does not include the costs of raising and repairing roads, extinguishing wildfires, replenishing beaches, building community cooling centers and air-conditioned public housing, dealing with droughts or recovering from extreme storms.

The report did not address the option of moving homes and businesses away from areas likely to frequently flood. It focused simply on the construction of seawalls.

Yes, people adapt, rather than using the most expensive possible option. If people see economic (or even emotional) reasons for protecting the land, they will. See the Netherlands.

So who is telling us this?

The study came from the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, a Washington-based organization with an international reach. It focuses on environmental policy and helping governments address the challenges of climate change. The IGSD has partnerships with the United Nations and universities. It claims no corporate affiliations.

The report on the costs of seawalls came out of an IGSD initiative called the Center for Climate Integrity. The report was released June 20, just a day after the Trump administration reversed federal rules designed to reduce planet-warming carbon emissions. Carbon emissions have caused climate change, and climate change is a direct cause of sea-level rise. The University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science predicts that levels around the state could rise anywhere from a foot to seven feet by the end of the century. It depends on how much carbon dioxide the world puts into the atmosphere, and researchers use different carbon-emission scenarios in their studies. Based on current trends, UMCES predicts about 7 inches of rise by 2030 and 1.2 feet by 2050.

Certainly, an absolutely non-biased source. /sarc

As usual, I will show how sea level is actually rising in Maryland:

Three mm/year, about the thickness of a 1 and a half nickels, with no evidence for any increase in the rate of sea level rise:

Yes, people will, rarely, have to move residences away from the rising water, but the problem is no worse now than it was back in my great grandfather's day. Could the water start rising faster? Well it could, I suppose, but until I see evidence of an increase in the rate at which the sea is rising has significantly increased, I'm unconcerned. Besides, 50 ft of sea level rise would put my boat slip conveniently into my back yard.

Reason #6382 that Trump was Elected

Because his views represent the "average" American's than his Democrat rivals: Poll: Trump Aligns Better with Voters than Democratic Candidates

The Rasmussen Survey has two recent polls that shed early light on how voters see President Trump and the Democratic presidential candidates in relation to their own views. A poll of likely voters released today found that:

…just 25% of Likely U.S. Voters consider most of the announced candidates for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination to be about the same as they are in political terms. Fifty-four percent (54%) say most of these candidates are more liberal than they are, while only 13% think they are more conservative.

The survey also asked, “Would it be more accurate to describe the agenda of most of the Democratic presidential hopefuls as mainstream or extreme?” Not being a subscriber, I can’t see the numbers here, but the publicly available summary of the poll says:

Voters see most of the Democratic presidential candidates as more liberal than they are and rate their agenda as outside the mainstream.

Last month, Rasmussen conducted a similar survey with regard to President Trump. Here are the results:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 34% of Likely U.S. Voters say that in political terms they think about the same as the Republican president. Forty-three percent (43%) feel he is more conservative than they are, while only 15% believe he’s more liberal.

If you add the voters who think the Democratic candidates are similar to their views or to the right, you get 38%. A clear majority of 54% says they are more liberal.

If you similarly add the voters who think President Trump is where they are politically, or else more liberal, you get 58%. Just 43% say Trump is more conservative than they are. So if you trust these numbers, Trump has a sizable advantage in terms of broad voter perception. He is closer to the electorate’s center of gravity than the Democrats.

So what accounts for his generally low approval ratings? Relentless attacks in the press.

A Wee Dram o' Russiagate

Wow, is this thing finally dying, or are we waiting for something big, like Mueller's "testimony?" George Parry at AmSpec has tips for the Republicans who will actually get to pose questions to the sphinx. The Art and Science of Cross-Examining Mueller

First, cross-examination is at once an art and a science, subject to certain rules that must be followed in order for it to be effective. Unfortunately, most members of Congress are terrible questioners and even worse cross-examiners. They tend to ask sloppy, convoluted, and easily evaded questions with little follow-up. It’s not their fault or even a part of their job description. It’s just the way it is.

Second, the committee format, which limits questioning by each member to a mere five minutes, makes it extremely difficult to lay the necessary foundation of any good cross-examination: the meticulous and comprehensive question-by-question preliminary process of pinning down the witness and closing off all rhetorical escape routes before the questioner can go in for the kill. Doing this well is difficult even for experienced trial lawyers who are not faced with an arbitrarily brief time limits.

So, how should the Republicans approach Mueller? Here are a few suggestions.

Not all cross-examination need be destructive or calculated to undermine the witness. In fact, if a witness has favorable information to impart, that should be elicited up front before the questioning becomes contentious.

For example, the Mueller report exonerates the president on the charge of conspiracy with Russia. Selected passages from the report that make that point should be read by the questioner to Mueller, and the questioner should follow the reading of each passage by asking, (a) Did I read that correctly, (b) In preparing and drafting the report, did you and your colleagues take care to have the report accurately reflect your findings, and (c) Is the passage that I just read the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? What’s Mueller going to do? Refute his own work product?

We know of at least two cases, and probably a third (Mifsud) where the special counsel's report omitted material helpful to the people charged. But apparently that can wait until later in the examination.

As for the claim that the report demonstrates that the president obstructed justice, the temptation for Republicans will be to get down into the weeds and mud wrestle with Mueller over the report’s loaded phraseology. They shouldn’t and they don’t need to do it.

There is an old maxim among trial lawyers about cross-examination: Never wrestle with a pig. You will just get dirty, and besides, the pig will like it. So, instead of parsing words, stay out of that bog and go for the big picture, starting with the fact that the Special Counsel neither charged Trump with obstruction nor made a finding of obstruction that could be acted on once the president leaves office.

Then the witness should be asked about Team Mueller’s investigative statistics: 2,800 grand jury subpoenas, 500 search and seizure warrants, 230 orders for communications records, 50 pen register orders, 13 requests to foreign governments, and interviews of approximately 500 witnesses, including almost 80 before the grand jury.

After reading each statistic, the questioner should ask whether the White House or anyone acting on its behalf opposed or attempted to block that effort. For example, as to the 500 grand jury subpoenas, did the Trump administration either assert executive privilege or move to quash a single one?

Was executive privilege asserted in regard to any of the 500 witnesses? Did the White House produce over one million documents? Did it assert executive privilege or attempt to withhold any document requested? Since the answers to these questions are a matter of public record and favorable to the president, Mueller will have a difficult time evading truthful and helpful responses.

So when do we get to ask about "spygate"?

After the non-destructive cross-examination is completed, then the questioners should shift to short, carefully phrased, and sharp questioning about such areas of interest as the following:

When did Mueller learn there was no collusion with Russia?

Did he delay announcing that there was no collusion? If so, why?

Did he drag out the investigation in the hope that the president, under constant and unremitting accusations of treason, would crack and submit to interrogation by Mueller’s Hillary acolytes? In other words, did Mueller prolong the investigation in the hope of luring the president into a General Flynn-style perjury trap?

Why did he hire and then fire Special Agent Peter Strzok? Was Strzok terminated because of his demonstrable hatred of the president?

Before he appointed Andrew Weissman to be his first assistant, was Mueller aware of Weissman’s checkered ethical background and record of prosecutorial misconduct? This line of inquiry should set forth seriatim each and every instance of Weissman’s misconduct and history of reversals by the courts for pursuing unfounded theories of criminal liability. This should include Weissman’s most significant professional accomplishment: the illegal and utterly unwarranted destruction of the Arther Anderson accounting firm, which resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.

As to each such milestone, Mueller should be asked if he considered Weissman’s behavior to be appropriate. He should also be asked to explain why he appointed Weissman to a leadership role in what was and continues to be such a sensitive and politically explosive matter of vital importance to the nation. Was there no one better than Weissman available to take the job?

I believe that Sundance at CTH and others have made a pretty good case that Weissman arranged to have Mueller hired as the figurehead for the investigation he was already engineering, and not the other way around.

Mueller should also be asked to explain his decision to hire only Democrat lawyers, including one who had represented the Clinton Foundation, others who had contributed to Hillary’s campaign, and, of course, Weissman, who attended Clinton’s abortive election night victory party? Was Mueller concerned about the appearance of impropriety created by his exclusive hiring of Democrat lawyers?

Did he consider any of these individuals to have an abiding animus against Trump? If so, why did he hire such individuals, and why didn’t he fire them as he did Strzok?

Mueller should be asked to explain his reasons for not investigating the source of the Russian collusion hoax, including the clandestine payments by the DNC and Clinton campaign for the eponymous Steele dossier.

As for Team Mueller’s conclusion that the DNC’s computer was hacked, he should be asked if his office or any law enforcement agency ever forensically examined the computer. Did they rely solely on the report of CrowdStrike, which was hired by the DNC? Also, did Team Mueller query the NSA for evidence that the purportedly hacked DNC data were transmitted in cyberspace?
. . .
This is by no means a complete template for cross-examining Mueller, but you get the idea. The possibilities for mischief and mayhem are endless and exciting.

Frankly, I doubt Republicans have the required discipline. Maybe if the bring Trey Gowdy back.

Jerry Dunleavy at WaEx: Groups claim Clinton campaign broke campaign laws over Fusion GPS and Steele funding. Not exactly original thinking. Laws are for little people and Republicans.

Two watchdog groups filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission alleging the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee broke campaign laws by filing reports meant to conceal their hiring of the opposition research firm Fusion GPS and British ex-spy Christopher Steele.

And one has now filed a lawsuit in federal court.

The Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit, filed its complaint with the FEC in 2017, alleging that Clinton and the DNC “failed to accurately disclose the purpose and recipient of payments for the dossier of research alleging connections between then-candidate Donald Trump and Russia, effectively hiding these payments from public scrutiny, contrary to the requirements of federal law.”

Mark Tapscott at ET, Hillary Clinton’s Lawyer Changes Story on When She Knew About Emails

Heather Samuelson, Hillary Clinton’s personal attorney, gave the FBI and Judicial Watch conflicting explanations of when she learned that the former secretary of state used a private email system to conduct official U.S. diplomatic business.

“I believe I first became aware when either she e-mailed me on personal matters, such as wishing me happy birthday, or when I infrequently would receive e-mails forwarded to me from others at the department that had that e-mail address listed elsewhere in the document,” Samuelson told Judicial Watch lawyers during a June 13, 2019, deposition.
Samuelson worked in the Department of State’s liaison office to President Barack Obama’s White House at the time, according to Judicial Watch.

Samuelson told the FBI in 2016 that she didn’t learn of the Clinton email system until becoming Clinton’s personal attorney in 2014, after serving for a year in the White House counsel’s office.

The 2016 conversation with the FBI was part of the bureau’s highly controversial investigation of the Clinton private email system, which culminated with then-FBI Director James Comey’s July 5, 2016, announcement that he wouldn’t recommend prosecution of the former chief diplomat.
. . .
Samuelson’s contradiction of her prior statement to the FBI is significant because she also told Judicial Watch that she had been granted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) what she described as “limited production immunity” in June 2016.

It isn’t known whether the DOJ’s grant of immunity insulated Samuelson against whatever legal obligation she may have had while working in the White House or the State Department to disclose to law enforcement officials her knowledge that Clinton wasn’t using a secured U.S. government communications system to conduct official diplomatic business.

Telling two different stories under oath? That's a no no for most people. I wonder if anyone will bother to prosecute her for lying to the FBI like Flynn or Papadop?

Monday Morning Wake Up - "Something on Your Mind"

Laura "Rebel Angel" Palmer:

The Wombat has Rule 5 Sunday: Cynthia Kirchner up on time and within budget.