Thursday, December 26, 2019
Ever since I say Tom Steyer's ads about how he was a successful businessman because his business(s) did not fail, I knew he was a tool. Everyone who's been paying attention knows that Trump had some spectacular business failures. We also know that the vast majority of people who start businesses FAIL. In fact many people who now have successful businesses often failed prior to that success. In fact, failure is OFTEN a part of success. Generally speaking, those who do not fail, do not learn for they have not challenged themselves. Hence, by suggesting that Trump was unqualified to serve as president because of his past failures, he was also saying that any of us who have failed at anything are not qualified to reach for high heights and that our opinions don't count for squat. So Mr. Steyer got on my bad side based on that alone. But there is more. For those of you familiar with The Matrix series knows that the Matrix legend is that in order to defeat the machines, humanity decided to black out the sky so that solar radiation would not be available for the machines. Of course this backfired spectacularly as the machines figured out that there were energy sources walking about and reproducing all around them. Hence the lesson about unintended consequences of not completely thought out plans. Back in the day when climate scaremongers were afraid of global *cooling*, they hatched a plan to melt arctic ice. I kid you not. Fortunately this utterly insane plan was not put into effect. But today I'm not so sure that such crazy plans would not be actually implemented. We have some crazy politicians, mostly on the Democrat side of the ledger who are wedded to the Climate Change religion. Tom Steyer is one of them and one of his advertisements clearly says that he will "end climate change".
Thursday, December 19, 2019
No, I'm not going to write about the impeachment vote. What's important to me is that a current candidate for president failed to vote "yea" or "nay". This matters. If you want to hold the executive office, emphasis on "executive" as in "execute" you must be able to make yea or nay decisions. Even if Tulsi thought that the entire show was bad and she didn't want to lend support to either side, IF she was president facing a similarly "tasteless" decision, she would *have* to make a decision. This was the time to show the potential voters that she can and will make decisions (right or wrong) and stick with them. Also, if one is on a jury, particularly in a criminal case, and you have reasonable doubts about the case being made about the defendant, you are supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant. That's a "nay" vote. Impeachment is a political process that is based on alleged criminal conduct. If a jurist has a reasonable doubt about the underlying alleged criminal conduct there is only one option. Hence Tulsi, like Kamala, Booker and others failed important tests for holding government power: Failing to uphold the innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Booker and Harris showed their non-qualifications during the Kavanaugh Show, once again, assuming the guilt of the accused and stating that the accused needed to "prove his innocence" though nothing under US jurisprudence requires any such thing. If they could not hold to the rules that govern the government while Senators (or Congresspersons) then they cannot be trusted with the power of the executive.
Wednesday, December 18, 2019
Apparently, a county (or counties) in VA have decided to call up a militia (as provided for in the second amendment along with the VA constitution) in response to the pending "gun control" legislation. Well that elevated quickly. Yesterday when I posted on the matter I briefly mentioned the questions facing those who may be charged with enforcing the legislation. Having slept on the matter and with the recent news I feel a need to ask these citizens and militia members a few questions. Are you really ready to fire shots at state troopers? National guard? FBI, ATF? Serious question. I'm not questioning the passion of those involved, I just wonder if they really....really understand what they are signing up for. Back in my wee youth when I was "ready for revolution" I did some things that would be considered felonies had they come to juries. Nobody was or was going to be harmed but that's all I'm going to say about that. Later at an institution of higher learning the students there wanted to hold a sit-in /take over. I took the leadership aside and let them know the potential legal situation that these leaders were putting both themselves and the students following them in. Color me surprised when the "leadership" made sure to not put themselves in such legal jeopardy while allowing the students they roused to action to take the legal risks. Fortunately, these were small scale and nobody had to face legal repercussions but the lesson stuck with me: If you're not really prepared for the "end game" you may not want to get involved. The end game in VA may very well be taking shots at federal agents. Are these militia members prepared to do that? Are these militia members ready and willing to go to prison for this? Are they prepared to go on juries and nullify any attempts at convictions. This is serious. Since the legislators know that they cannot rely on local law enforcement to carry out the orders, they will have to go with people originating outside these locations. Hence, there will be no familial or community ties or sympathy to play on. So unless those who would be ordered to put down these county rebellions are incredibly sympathetic and are willing to put their own careers, possible freedom and family support at risk, these militia members could be facing very well supplied and determined feds. You'll note I haven't mentioned things like cutting off services because I think that these rural Virginians are far more prepared than city dwellers to go without "conveniences". The VA state legislature is counting on a few things here: 1) The conservatives are and remain "law-abiding". Since conservatives place a high value on law and order and obeying the law, they are less likely to defy the law even if they disagree with it (hence the "lost my gun in a boating accident"). This issue may be the event that breaks this particular trait. 2) That the threat of or use of overwhelming force, a-la Waco, will get the counties in line when the rubber hits the road. I think the odds are in the state's favour in this regard. There are ways out that don't involve bloodshed. First, I hope that AG Barr is paying attention and has DOJ lawyers ready to immediately challenge the law(s) as soon as they are to take effect. This administration has been very lax in this department. Maybe this was Jeff's fault but I remain skeptical. Such legal action would give breathing room for all parties involved. Secondly, the legislators involved do not pass the law. As pointed out by other writers on the matter, there are people who got into the state legislature on this issue alone. It would be difficult for them to vote against the very thing that got them into office. However; if they see the larger picture that is being painted here I would hope they would understand that supporting such legislation will likely have very negative outcomes that far outweigh what they believe they are gaining. But like the stock market there remains a large short term focus by many politicians. 2020 is going to be interesting. Is that thing they're poking a bear or a ferret?
Tuesday, December 17, 2019
That's a lot in the title eh? Since Trump has been elected a number of cities and states have declared themselves to be sanctuaries for illegal aliens. This has been met with approval from Democrats and other assorted leftists who cheered when the Obama administration put the smackdown on Arizona. The Obama administration claimed that it was the Federal government's purvue to enforce immigration law, not the States. Now states are making up their own immigration laws in direct contradiction to what they cheered for when Obama was in office. Not only that but these sanctuary cities and states are in direct violation of federal immigration law which makes it a felony to aide in the harboring an illegal alien as well as enticing them to come and stay. This is why I had been hard on Jeff Sessions who talked a good game but spent his time as AG, talking about enforcing civil forfeiture rather than arresting and prosecuting those who were openly in violation of federal law. NY State now hands drivers licenses to illegal aliens. To show how Orwellian it's gotten, a local news reporter said that NYS now gives driver's licenses to "immigrants". NYS has always given driver's licenses to immigrants. NYS, up to now, honored the law and did not give licenses (otherwise known as "enticements") to illegal aliens. NYS is of course not alone in this blatant lawbreaking. 13 other states do the same thing on the grounds of "public safety". So we have open defiance of federal law by various states that go unpunished. In stark contrast we have Virginia in the midst of an apparent Michael Bloomberg financed attack on the 2nd Amendment rights of its citizens. I don't know all the details of the proposed "gun control" law(s) that are supposedly going to be put on the books in 2020, but from the reactions of various law enforcement agents in various counties that those proposed laws are apparently VERY infringing. To counter this a large number (majority?) of counties have declared themselves 2nd Amendment sanctuaries. In response to this, the same people who are OK with cities and states declaring themselves sanctuaries for illegal aliens (in defiance of federal law), are threatening these counties with responses up to and including deployment of the national guard. Could this turn into a hot civil war? We are already in a cold-ish civil war with Antifa assaulting people in public with support of state agents. We have companies that fire citizens for having the wrong opinions. We have state agencies passing unconstitutional laws declaring how people should refer to other people. I honestly believe that there will be a tipping point to where it gets to two-way violence. A lot of people in the US know very little about the US Civil War beyond that slavery was involved. They don't understand why all those confederate statues exist. They do not understand that the US Civil War was very much about the imposition of northern states on southern states. People, generally speaking, do not care for outsiders imposing their will on them. This is not to defend slavery, it's about understanding human nature. Once the US Civil War was over, the country had to get along and could not treat each other as enemies. Today we are fast approaching similar levels of animosity that preceeded the US Civil War. It's arguable that Mike Bloomberg imposed himself on Virginia (a place he does not reside or work in) by funding the campaigns of people who would otherwise not have been able to run a campaign, much less win an election. Furthermore; the places where these Bloomberg candidates won were those near DC, which has very different demographics than the rest of the state (I drive through that state often, and yes, there is a HUGE difference between north-east VA and the rest of the state). So if these laws come to pass and there is resistance to their implementation how far will this go? If the various county leaders don't fold (and I think they are more likey TO fold than not to) is the state willing to WACO an entire county? Will a future Democratic president be willing to WACO these counties? Serious question. This scenario is not outside the real of possibility. What would the national reaction be if a WACO type situation arises? Will members of the military be willing to kill to infringe the rights of citizens to bear arms? Police have already done so in places like Maryland. I see a lot of "I lost my guns in a boating accident" type commentary on the web. Well, these red flag laws will allow the state to search your premises for these drowned guns. They don't need a registry, just a "somebody" claiming that they think a citizen is a threat. This issue is going to be interesting to watch. I really think that the Feds need to come down extremely hard on these cities and states declaring themselves "sanctuaries" in violation of law. I would include RICO charges for those legislators who proposed and voted for these laws. They knew they were in violation and did not care. Arrest, prosecute and disrobe all the judges who allow illegal aliens to avoid the authorities as well. Matter of fact, allow citizens to sue any and all authorities involved if their family members have been harmed or killed by any illegal alien given sanctuary.
And here's what the IG said. Sir. Were you lying then or are you lying now? And let me direct a point to the black readers. The entire reason the FISA court exists is due to the shady stuff that Hoover did to MLK. So understand that the people that come at you, hat in hand talking about donate to their campaign because they support Civil Rights and they marched with so and so and whatnot, ALL backed this nonsense. And they continue to back this nonsense. This entire process shows that they don't give 2 cents about Civil Rights or anything like that. Its power. Plain power. And you keep giving it to them.
Periodically I see reports about the low enrollment of black students in NYC's specialized high schools. The charge is always racism and white supremacy despite the following:
Currently, 60 percent of specialized high-school students are Asian, 24 percent white, and 10 percent Hispanic and black.It's absolutely amazing how this "White Supremacy" provides the highest benefits to those classified as non-white.
The lack of black and Hispanic students has become “so bad and so unacceptable,” Liu said.Unacceptable to who? Whom? Why would I find it unacceptable that students who do not pass the test do not get to attend the school? That's like finding it unacceptable for losers of the game to not be given the award for winning.
“I don’t think the SHSAT is going to be eliminated,” Liu told the crowd of roughly 100 parents, referring to the Specialized High School Admissions Test, which is currently the sole admissions determinant for the city’s top public high schools.So if blacks want in on the schools at higher numbers all they have to do is pass...the...test.
Critics of the current admissions system cast the single test as an inadequately narrow marker of student talent that benefits families with the resources to prepare for it.If you're homeless, then you don't have the resources. If you are, say, on welfare and scraping by, then you don't have the resources. However; if you have a car note for a European or high-end Japanese vehicle, you have the resources. If you have a closet full of shoes, you have the resources. If you have a closet full of clothes, 90% of which you don't wear, you have the resources. If you get your hair done on the weekly, you have the resources. It's about priorities and intelligence. Period. Now one of the other reasons for low black enrollment is that bright black students get "scholarshipped" into private schools looking to increase their "diversity". There are only so many high performing black students to go around. Of course, while these schools are 60% Asian, the focus remains on white people who are the sun, moon and stars to the vast majority of black people:
One attendee ripped racial segregation in her area, District 2 in Manhattan, and urged white parents to be more active in ensuring racially mixed classrooms. “Trump is a product of New York City,” she said of the Republican president.Firstly, as said before the schools are 60% Asian. It would seem to me that the people in need of "urging" are Asian parents. Logical no? Secondly, what does Trump have to do with the schools? He graduated a long time ago (before me even) when the demographics of the NYC school system was far different than it is today.
“Black and brown people are just tired of fighting for something white people don’t want,” she said. “If you are in this room, and you are white person, I need you — a lot of people need you — to start stepping up and being vocal about the fact that you actually want to send your child to school with black and brown children.”Speak for yourself. I'm more concerned with the qualifications of the person at the head of the classroom than the racial composition of the student sitting one seat over. besides, why are you fighting with "white people" when it's Asians who are dominating these schools. Why don't you ask them why THEY don't want THEIR kids in the same school as blacks?
The speaker did not mention Asians or their place in the city’s school integration controversy.Shocked.
Monday, December 16, 2019
I don't know the religious affiliation of those running Crown Media which owns the Hallmark channel so I cannot say that they are yet another Christian company that failed the Job Test But I do know that a lot of Christians pay to get the Hallmark channel that was promoted as "family friendly". These persons expected that in exchange for their money, the channel would not push [much] of the modern day anti-Christian themes easily found elsewhere. I believe that a large portion of the Hallmark Channel's consists of such customers. Of course that Hallmark, known primarily for greeting cards has a larger business to think of. Hence the background for Crown Media's problem: Do they risk Hallmark's greeting cards business in affluent coastal regions where the LGBTQ is strong or tread lightly for their Christian customers. These days that's not even a hard question as Crown Media quickly caved to LGBTQ Enforcers Inc. But I saw that Crown Media AND Zola are cowards. Here's why. If you are the kind of person who pays attention you'll notice that LGBTQ Enforcers Inc. target white Christians. They don't target anyone else. So here's my challenge to Crown Media and Zola. Come next Ramadan, you produce and air a commercial featuring two (or more since Islam allows for multiple wives) Hijab wearing (but unveiled so there's no question) women getting married in a Mosque by an Imam holding a clearly visible Quran. Also produce and air a commercial featuring two (or more since Islam allows for multiple "wives") Muslim in "typical" Arab/Muslim garb (head dress, flowing robes) in a mosque with an Imam presiding holding a clearly visible Quran. Go ahead and produce and air these advertisements not only on US cable and broadcast television, but also on the internet. In fact, I dare any of these companies who are pushing the LGBTQ stuff to do so with Muslim appearing actors and actresses. I challenge the advertising execs at any of these companies to challenge any advertisement presented to them in which a Christian is depicted in a means clearly contradictory to Christian teachings and have them substitute Muslims. As a matter of fact, they should, next Ramadan, Which is Thursday, April 23, 2020, They should have a commercial with a guy dressed as Mohammed and a rather young looking girl as Aisha his child-wife. Everyone involved would not only shit their pants but they would be nervous during the shoots and would probably seriously entertain the thought of hiring armed security personnel. Why? We all know why. Christians, at present are not even paper tigers. Nobody, and I mean NO-BODY fears crossing a Christian. Muslims, however, have made it perfectly clear what they will do if you insult the religion and the prophet. It doesn't matter if it's "not all Muslims". Enough of them are willing (and able) to strike back. Furthermore; they get the special "racist" cover not given to white Christians because white liberals seem to think that slavery, colonialism and imperialism began and ends with white people. So yeah Crown Media and Zola are cowards, just not the way the media would have you believe.
Friday, December 13, 2019
Issues and Insights has a great piece on the current impeachment nonsense.
The accusation against Nixon, in Article 1, was that he “committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee … for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.”As I've mentioned to people before. Nixon committed actual crimes. There was absolutely no doubt about that by anyone. Now the interesting part with particular relevance given the recent IG report:
On top of that, “He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office,” and “authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the president, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency.”>Sound familiar, doesn't it? And Clinton:
Democrats at the time reveled in claiming the Clinton impeachment was all about sex. It was actually about repeatedly committing perjury to prevent the public from knowing about his philandering, especially with a young White House intern. Article 1 said, “William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning … the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employee,” plus other false statements and “his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence” in the course of legal actions against him.Again, Clinton actually committed a crime. Trump's phone call, exercise of executive privilege and seeking court resolutions of what he believed to be unlawful subpoenas are not crimes.
Thursday, December 12, 2019
Homepage of the NY Times as of 8:50AM today:
For almost two decades, the intelligence bureau of the New York Police Department has built a security apparatus designed to track international terror groups like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. Now, the department is aiming those resources at a different target: far-right and extremist hate groups. Police officials say they have formed a new unit within the department’s intelligence bureau, known as “Racially and Ethnically Motivated Extremism,” or “R.E.M.E,” that will be primarily dedicated to investigating terror threats from far-right and neo-Nazi organizations, including groups like the Atomwaffen Division and The Proud Boys. The unit became operational early this month, and already has dozens of open investigations, police officials said.Ok....
According to the Anti-Defamation League, which tracks such incidents, 50 people were killed by extremists in the United States in 2018, and every one of the incidents was linked to far-right ideologies.Really?
“Who do they see as being the threat to the society they want to create — this white ethnostate?” Ms. Sizemoer said. “A city like New York City, where you have all of these races and ethnicities and religions all in one place. That’s the threat.”Really? If white "far right" groups are such a danger to Jews (and presumably others) in and around NY then why did the NY Times post the following in 2018:
If anti-Semitism bypasses consideration as a serious problem in New York, it is to some extent because it refuses to conform to an easy narrative with a single ideological enemy. During the past 22 months, not one person caught or identified as the aggressor in an anti-Semitic hate crime has been associated with a far right-wing group, Mark Molinari, commanding officer of the police department’s Hate Crimes Task Force, told me.Sir, are you lying now or were you lying then? Oh and that ADL claim? Long debunked in the Times Of Israel *ahem*:
The terminology of “extremist-related murders” creates a false impression that the report is exclusively devoted to racially or politically motivated murders. This is not true. It’s important to note that this is not a report about hate crimes, although hate crimes are included. This is a report about “extremist-related murders.” What’s that? According to the report, an extremist related murder is a murder where “there must be positive evidence connecting the murderer to an extremist group or movement. However, the murderers themselves do not need to be necessarily related to racist or ideological motives to be included in the report. The report includes murders committed for ideological and non-ideological reasons. In fact, the report states that of the 50 murders, only 19 were considered ideologically or racially motivated. The rest of the murders were non-ideological or the motives were unclear. Wrong. Murders by so-called “far right extremists” represent a tiny fraction of total murders in the US. It is not a “major threat.” We do not even know how many “non-far right” extremist murders took place because, according to the ADL, the data is difficult to obtain. [My underlines]Oh. Sir, are you lying now or were you lying then? This is why I no longer consider the NY Times, Time magazine and a host of other mainstream media to be authoritative information sources. They don't even bother to look at what they themselves printed a year ago. I'm not surprised that NY has this stupid task force. Look at the Mayor. I'm sure anyone who knows the real deal either didn't speak up, been "reassigned" or voluntarily early retired.
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
So while I've been not posting I've been watching, reading and training. Part of my watching has been a few fellows who have done time. I figured this particular episode was worth posting because I see so many people complaining about oppression and how this is hard and that is hard and all that. No, not it's not and no you're not oppressed.
Comey back in 2016:
That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found: Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information... There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails)... None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail. Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.There was a guy in Connecticut who put his Model 3 on "auto-pilot". He then proceeded to "check on his dog" in the back seat. During this maneuver the car ran into a police vehicle that was assisting a broken down motorist in one of the center lanes. He's being charged with reckless driving. Do you think he can use the "well I was extremely careless and didn't "intend" to crash into the police car so you should drop these charges" defense? I seriously doubt that. Yet here's Comey making that exact argument. Which brings us to the IG report. Although it's important to note that the IG has no prosecutorial powers, his report does the same thing as Comey
Conclusions Concerning All Four FISA Applications We concluded that the failures descr ibed above and in this repo rt represent serious performance failures by the supervisory and non-supervisory agents with responsibility over the FISA applications. These failures prevented OI from fully performing its gatekeeper function and dep rived the decision makers the opportunity to make fully informed decisions. Although some of t he factual misstatements and omissions we fou nd in t his review were arguably more significant tha n others, we believe t hat all of them taken together resulted in FISA applica t ions that made it appear that the information supporting probable cause was stronger than was actually the case. We identified at least 17 significant errors or omissions in the Carter Page FISA applications, and many add it ional errors in the Woods Procedures. These errors and omissions resulted from case agents providing wrong or incomplete infor mation to OI and failing to flag im portant issues for discussion . While we did not f ind documentary or testimonial evidence of intent ional m isconduct on the part of the case agents who assist ed OI in preparing the applications, or the agents and supervisors who performed the Woods Procedures, we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or problems we identified. I n most instances, t he agent s and supervisors told us t hat they either did not know or recall why the information was not shared with OI, that the fa ilure to do so may have been an oversight, t hat they did not recognize at t he time the releva nce of t he information to t he FI SA applica tion, or t hat t hey did not believe th e missing information to be significant . On this last point, we believe that case agents may have improperly substituted their own j udgments in place of the j udgment of OI, or in place of the court, to weigh t_he probative va lue of t he information.Substituted their own judgement for the court? What pray tell, was the judgement involved? Maybe "Orange Man Bad"?
Further, the failu re to update OI on all significant case dev elopments relevant to t he FISA applications led us to conclude that t he agents and supervisors did not g ive appropriate at tention or t reatm ent to t he facts t hat cut aga inst probable cause, or reassess t he infor mation supporting probable cause as the investigation progressed. T he agents and SSAs also did not fo llow, or appear to even know, t he requirements in t he Woods Proced ures to reverify the factual assertions from previous applicationsAgents didn't "know" the rules that govern their investigations? Sure. OK.
None of the inaccuracies and omissions that we identified in t he renewal application s were brought to the attention of OI before the applica tions were filed . As a resu lt, similar to t he fi rst application, the Department officials who reviewed one or more of the renewa l applicati ons, including Yates, Boente, and Rosenstein, did not have accurate and complete information at t he t ime t hey app roved them . We do not speculate whether or how having accurate and complete information might have influenced the decisions of senior Departm ent leaders who supported th e four FISA applications, or t he court, if they had known all of t he relevant information.Well I'll speculate: If you give me more and accurate information I'll make a better decision than if I have wrong information. The only way I make a bad decision after getting "better" or "more accurate" information is if I have already decided on the action and facts be damned.
We did not identify a specific Department policy prohibiting Ohr from meeting with Steele, Simpson, or the State Department and providing the information he learned from those meetings to the FBI. However, Ohr was clearly cognizant of his responsibility to inform his supervisors of these interactions, and acknowledged to the OIG that the possibility that he would have been told by his supervisors to stop having such contact may have factored into his decision not to tell them about it. We concluded that Ohr committed consequential errors in judgment by ( 1) failing to advise his direct supervisors or the DAG that he was communicating with Steele and Simpson and then requesting meetings with the FBI's Deputy Director and Crossfire Hurricane team on matters that were outside of his areas of responsibility, and (2) making _h imself a witness in the investigation by meeting with Steele and providing Steele's information to the FBI. As we describe in Chapter Eight, the late discovery of Ohr's meetings with the FBI prompted NSD to notify the FISC in July 2018, over a year after the final FISA re newal order was issued, of information that Ohr had provided to the FBI but that the FBI had failed to inform NSD and 01 about (and therefore was not included in the FISA applications), including that Steele was "desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being the U.S. President."Oh I see. Ohr doesn't tell his supervisors about meetings he's having because they would have told him to stop even though there's no policy saying he can't have these meetings. Really? Oh and if I don't tell then the supervisors have plausible deniability of knowing of Ohr's activities. Nothing to see here. Move along.
FBI Compliance with Policies · In addition, for reasons we explain in Chapter Eleven, we concluded that the federal ethics rules did not require Ohr to obtain Department ethics counsel approval before engaging with the FBI in connection with the Crossfire Hurricane matter because of Nellie Ohr's prior work for Fusion GPS. However, we found that, given the factual circumstances that existed, and the appearance that they created, Ohr displayed a lapse in judgment by not availing himself of the process described in the ethics rules to consult with the Department ethics official about his involvement in the investigation .Again, there's no rule prohibiting this but we have "lapses of judgment". So many "lapses in judgement"
We did not find any documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to conduct these operations. Additionally, we found no evidence that the FBI attempted to place any CHSs within the Trump campaign, recruit members of the Trump campaign as CHSs, or task CHSs to report on the Trump campaign. However, we are concerned that, under applicable Department and FBI policy, it would have been sufficient for a first-level FBI supervisor to authorize the sensitive domestic CHS operations undertaken in Crossfire Hurricane, and that there is no applicable Department or FBI policy requiring the FBI to notify Department officials of a decision to task CHSs to consensually monitor conversations with members of a presidential campaign. Specifically, in Crossfire Hurricane, where one of the CHS operations involved consensually monitoring a high-level official on the Trump campaign who was not a subject of the investigation, and all of the operations had the potential to gather sensitive information of the campaign about protected First Amendment activity, we found no evidence that the FBI consulted with any Department officials before conducting the CHS operations-and no policy requiring the FBI to do so. We therefore believe that current Department and FBI policies are not sufficient to ensure appropriate oversight and accountability when such operations potentially implicate sensitive, constitutionally protected activity, and that requiring Department consultation, at a minimum, would be appropriate.See how the "bad" activity is hidden behind "no specific FBI policy" and other jargon. Agents and supervisors "should have known" and "should have done" whatever, but since there was no "policy" then there is no bias. That numerous people did "non-rule breaking" things that were "lapses of government" all directed at unseating Trump is just a co-inky-dink. just like it was a co-inky-dink that Clinton's e-mails were deleted by her lawyers and technicians and weren't turned over to the FBI for analysis and she didn't break any particular rule on purpose. It was just a "lapse of judgment". Anyway, that document is 400+ pages and contains a lot more "lapses in judgment" than I've quoted here.
Monday, December 02, 2019
Since I have some time off I can post on this piece I read some time ago entitled "We failed to reach Europe – now our families disown us"
Fatmata breaks into sobs when she remembers the six months she spent in slavery as the "wife" of a Tuareg nomad who seized her in the Sahara desert. "They call him Ahmed. He was so huge and so wicked," she says. "He said, 'You are a slave, you are black. You people are from hell.' He told me when somebody has a slave, you can do whatever you want to do. Not only him. Sometimes he would tell his friend, 'You can have a taste of anything inside my house.' They tortured me every day."Remember: There was Muslim slavery in Africa prior to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and there is Muslim slavery now.
When she got back, she called her brother. But his reaction terrified her. "He told me, 'You should not even have come home. You should just die where you went, because you didn't bring anything back home.'"This sentiment is not uncommon.
She stole 25 million leones - about US $2,600 at today's exchange rate, but then worth a lot more - from her aunt. It was money her aunt had given her to buy clothes, that could then be resold as part of her trading business. Her aunt regularly trusted her in that way. "I was only thinking how to get the money and go," Fatmata says, though she adds that she's not a selfish person. "If I had succeeded in going to Europe, I decided that I would triple the money, I would take good care of my aunt and my mum." But Fatmata's aunt's business never recovered from the loss of the money. And - to make things even worse - the theft has caused a rift between the aunt and her sister, Fatmata's mother, whom she falsely accuses of being in on Fatmata's plan.This is also not uncommon. This has to be the third report I've read this year about how people are leaving stable places where they have small businesses and give smugglers relatively large sums of money to get into Europe to live on the streets in the cold in the hopes of "making it big". That's not all though. It's not just money theft from families.
Jamilatu, aged 21, who escaped with Fatmata from the traffickers' prison in Algeria, took a plastic bag of cash worth $3,500 from her mother's room when she was out of the house. The money didn't even belong to her mother. It had all been lent to her by neighbours, as part of a microcredit scheme.Microcredit. I used to regularly give micro-loans. A good 20% went unpaid. Then I realized that some was being used to get to Europe. Not what I intended. And even when you try to help the returnees:
As for Fatmata and Jamilatu, they never received an allowance because they returned from Mali at a time when some other Sierra Leoneans were abusing the system by catching a bus to Mali, pretending they'd returned from across the Sahara, and claiming the allowance. So everyone returning from Mali lost out, including Fatmata and Jamilatu.These migrations are a huge human capital drain on the "sending" countries whether they be in Africa or Central America. Entire villages are depopulated (often of the men) and economic activity halted as money is diverted to smugglers. But hey..diversity.