Pages

Saturday, October 3, 2020

UPDATED: This Is Really Shocking

Many of you probably have seen this. I just saw it, and I have to say I'm shocked. Shocked at how low a major portion of our country has fallen--to openly and quite cynically embrace a known hoax. The Dem strategy seems to rest on the assumption that you can fool most of the people most of the time--maybe even all of the time. 

This is what I mean. At the start of this video clip Tucker Carlson plays "Senator" Chris Murphy from CT describing Vladimir Putin as one of President Trump's "surrogates." 



I picked this up from Thomas Lifson at AmThinker. In the video Mark Steyn describes British PM Boris Johnson as "a changed man" since his Covid illness. Steyn attributes this to Johnson failing to take the necessary measures at once, continuing a heavy work schedule, and winding up in the hospital in actually serious condition.

Lifson comments on the Boris Johnson angle:

This is most worrisome to Trump supporters, of course. But because Johnson foolishly (it turns out) continued his work pace after diagnosis, that might account for the progress the disease made, with dreadful consequences. Trump’s quick response, including hospitalization, means that the disease is being treated at its very earliest stage, with inflammation – which is what does the real damage --  fought with multiple approaches (see Dr. Joondeph’s article on Trump’s hospitalization).

One significant plus to Trump's residence in Walter Reed is that the doctors there can force Trump to rest, whereas if he were in the White House, his own staff would be in charge of his schedule, with medical staff mere advisors. Early rest and treatment should pay big dividends in avoiding PM Johnson's fate.

While I am no medical doctor, I suspect that the disease is being arrested before it can spread inflammation to the organs that are most vulnerable to damage.  In other words, there is an excellent chance that Trump will be back to work quickly at full force. That will help quell the panic that the media have been spreading about the number of “cases” being a cause for concern and about the exaggerated fear of mortality fromCovid, now that we know how to treat it.


UPDATE: Not entirely related, but not unrelated either, is Don Surber's wonderful takedown of Andy McCarthy's review of John Yoo's new book.

Here's a link to the book: Defender in Chief: Donald Trump's Fight for Presidential Power.

And here's a link to Surber's takedown of McCarthy: Trump's success is no accident.

And it bear repeating, always, that Bill Barr came out of retirement to perform exactly the supporting role to President Trump that John Yoo describes--as Defender of Presidential Power. Barr, it scarcely needs saying, is several times the lawyer and legal thinker that McCarthy ever was and ever will be. And yet Barr was not too proud to work in a supporting role for the Trump that McCarthy prefers to snipe at.


33 comments:

  1. I have never come out and called Andrew McCarthy a hack, but it’s never too late. I have watched him hang back, even pay little mind to the Strzok-Page texts, until he realized that history was running away from him, the train was leaving the station, and he’d better climb on. So he’d come out with his stiff-lipped (he hates Trump) faux scholarly “analyses” of what was going on. He even said he’d read (some of?) the texts. Always a day late and a dollar short, he’d now have us think he had been leading the charge all along. So faux.

    McCarthy, formerly of the old boys cabal at SDNY, fell into Fox’s analyst directory and his page is so dog-eared that they hit on him every time they need a “legal” opinion. (Seems to me they used to have a lawyer/analyst who was lot smarter and a heckuva lot more attractive. Sans pomposity…?)

    So now I’ll go and read Surber’s takedown. He can be a master when he wants to… I knew I liked Surber!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BTW, I believe John Yoo is a quantum leap beyond McCarthy and has a much more attractive personality. Someone should tell McCarthy that superciliousness is no substitute for knowledge, experience, and common smarts...

      Delete
    2. I couldn’t detect a link to McCarthy’s piece in the posted article. Here it is:

      https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/the-accidental-defender-of-the-constitution

      The McCarthy as ultimate authority? I don’t think so...

      Delete
  2. The only alternative to "openly and quite cynically embrace a known hoax" is for the ReSiStaNcE to admit either that they were wrong or complicit. Neither is acceptable to to their phony media-addled reputations or egos.

    ReplyDelete
  3. To the uninitiated the SDNY seems like it's own little fiefdom free from oversight. Kind of like the Yankees of criminal prosecuted, I've always wondered if this is earned and also did Joe DiGenova serve in SDNY and what's the worth of all his prognostication? He purports to have his finger on the pulse but I remember assurances back a few months that James Baker had flipped. What of that? Seems a hall of mirrors, all the leaking and punditry...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We don’t know what James Baker did or didn’t do. If you follow SWC’s revised definition, where he disowns “flipped” and replaces it with “answered questions rather than refused to answer”, Baker may well have done just that. We don’t know.

      Delete
  4. I see McCarthy as a plodder. Very methodical and needs to have every point proven step by step. Which makes his book ball of collusion even more important. When even McCarthy thinks there are issues...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ray, I believe that’s what McCarthy would like us to believe. That he is the cool, serious legal sage, who sits back, cogitating and stroking his chin, while others do all the investigative work. Then sets out to imply that he, The Final Authority, has spoken.

      Delete
  5. I’m at a complete loss to see how anyone can read McCarthy’s review and come away with the conclusions of Surber.

    I’d urge anyone who wants to look into this to read the entirety of McCarthy’s review first, with no preconceived notions, and only after that read Mr. Surber’s piece.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brad, I think Surber is exactly right. McCarthy is saying that, while Trump's actions have in the end defended the presidency and the constitutional order envisioned by the founders, that result was achieved in spite of rather than because of Trump's intentions.

      Thus, McCarthy writes, "this [safeguard[ing] the presidency as the Framers envisioned it when they crafted our founding law] is not Trump’s conscious objective."

      McCarthy's proof for this is that, when quized, Trump could only guess--and guessed wrongly--as to the number of article there are in the constitution. I'll freely admit that I would also have been unable to guess correctly, and I don't think I'm an ignoramus in these matters--any more than Trump is an ignoramus. It's a shallow argument on McCarthy's part because, after all, not all the articles are of equal weight in the big scheme of things. Knowing the number of articles is not the measure of intent to defend the institutions of our constitutional order.

      McCarthy concludes by writing, "Has all of this been in the president’s self-interest? Without a doubt. Donald Trump did not come to power as a crusader for the Constitution. He is self-driven and without reverence for the norms of his office."

      I believe that conclusion is unwarranted by any evidence that McCarthy can advance. Trump is very far from being the ignoramus and boor that McCarthy and others portray. He is both natively highly intelligent but also far more knowledgeable in general than most critics want to admit. He shows all the signs of possessing an insatiable curiosity. With a person like that it is simply unwarranted to assume that he's ignorant of the constitution or without reverence for it. On the contrary, I believe he has a very good sense for as well as a reverence for the constitutional order as envisioned by the founders. Nor do I see him making major missteps that need to be corrected.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the typically thoughtful response, Mark. I've been working all day and now will have to work through the evening, as well, so I can't say more now other than that I'll provide a very brief and hopefully equally thoughtful response tomorrow.

      PS: I'm sure there is a lot of well-wishing for President Trump going on now -here and elsewhere- and I'd like to join in all of that both heart & soul.

      Delete
  6. McCarthy lost me a long time ago. Or, never had me. OTOH, Shipwrecked is losing me in real time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm perfectly happy to quote either or both of them whenever I think they're on the right track. The difference between them is that SWC doesn't feel the need to denigrate Trump just because.

      BTW, SWC said something else today re the relationship between agents and AUSAs that I just couldn't buy.

      He seems to think that agents expect AUSAs to take their version of a recorded conversation more or less on faith without producing a transcript--and would be offended if asked to produce a transcript or--heavens!--a dupe of the recording.

      Agents are nowhere near that unreasonable. While agents know that AUSAs aren't investigators, they also know they agents aren't prosecutors and understand that a prosecutor can only evaluate a case that may rely on a recording if they hear that recording. A 302 summarizing the recording is no substitute, because the 302 isn't admissible. To basically coerce a plea based on a 302's conclusory summary of a recording is, IMO, unprofessional but above all unethical.

      Thus, when, SWC writes--

      "If I got to the point with a particular Agent that I didn't trust his 302, I wasn't working on any cases where his 302 is necessary"--

      I have two observations:

      1. What about Barnett? He said he'd never work with Rhee, but then he did--with Strzok "running interference". Is that how SWC would supposedly not work with an agent he didn't trust?

      2. But more to the point, if SWC wouldn't dream of offending agents by demanding to see or here the basic evidence in a case--like a recording--how would he ever get to the point of not trusting an agent? After being exposed at trial before a judge and jury for having accepted a 302 summary on faith without listening to the recording before charging the defendant.

      It doesn't add up. He's making debating points to bludgeon those questioning him, but it's not the reality of how the process really works.

      Delete
    2. @Mark

      I like your use of the word 'hinky'. So I'll use it.

      I think its kinda hinky for SWC to fall back on inside baseball arguments to support the obviously dishonest Flynn prosecution, as in an AUSA really doesn't need to diligence an agent's claim against a 3 Star general and nominated national security adviser...and then when that argument isn't selling fall back on expletives and ad hominem insults to try to salvage his case.

      I think he needs to take a breather.

      Delete
    3. I agree. To expand on my example only slightly, AUSAs do not go to trial based on a simple review of agent 302s. They interview the witnesses, sometimes bring them in front of the GJ, etc. The idea that they take the agents' representations in their 302s as gospel is ridiculous. And, as you say, in a case like this ...

      Delete
  7. Can you imagine the horror McCarthy would feel about being compared to SWC? A blogger? That name? Ew. McCarthy wouldn’t bother to find out what SWC had been, or anything about him. He is superficial in his assessments, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mark, Thank you for an outstanding blog.
    I came across this review of “Your Hired!”, which provides an inside look at Trump’s astute policy / communications strategy.

    https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2020/09/youre-hired-mulligan-review.html?m=1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tx, Galen. I'll check it out.

      Delete
    2. Long, so not through it all yet, but fascinating. Gives the lie to those who think Trump is stupid and only accomplishing so much somehow 'by accident.'

      Delete
  9. "The Dem strategy seems to rest on the assumption that you can fool most of the people most of the time--maybe even all of the time."

    I think the Clintons figured it out in the 1990s: You can fool *enough* of the people *enough* of the time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You can fool *enough* of the people *enough* of the time."
      The Left has known this, at least since Lenin, who saw that at least some of the proletariat could be conned, into letting the intellectuals be the Vanguard of the Dictatorship.

      Delete
  10. LOL, had to laugh at "One significant plus to Trump's residence in Walter Reed is that the doctors there can force Trump to rest,"

    Jack Posobiec tweet;

    Walter Reed source tells @OANN, "A big concern right now is he isn’t getting enough rest. The man doesn't know how to sit still. Lays down for 20min at best until he's back up and pacing around. Eager to get back to the WH"

    Bruce from Oz

    ReplyDelete
  11. I was very impressed by Trumps intense focus at the 1st debate. His quick responde to attacks / slanted questions from Biden / Wallace. Trump was not using a list of prepackaged responses, as Biden did a lot. Trump seems to like playing the arrogant blowhard to disarm his foes, but there is method to his madness...

    I’ve been surprised how much Trump has gotten done. I wish it was more, but with the “Resistance” and the coup / impeachment his accomplishments are amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  12. wow - this is surprising, I wonder why this isn't in the news, xenophobia and all:

    On Oct. 2, USCIS issued policy guidance in the USCIS Policy Manual to address inadmissibility based on membership in or affiliation with the Communist Party or any other totalitarian party. Membership in or affiliation with the Communist Party or any other totalitarian party is inconsistent and incompatible with the Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America, which includes pledging to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

    https://www.uscis.gov/news/alerts/uscis-issues-policy-guidance-regarding-inadmissibility-based-on-membership-in-a-totalitarian-party

    Frank

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think there are very few Chinese students coming to the US for school who are not tied to the CCP. This practically shuts down China from the US education system.

      Delete
    2. in the early '70's this also precluded on from even consideration for a security clearanc

      One still wonders who gave Brennan a pass to even be hired by the CIA, and mentored him till he was too far up the chain to be questioned.
      Tom S.

      Delete
    3. At the suggestion of Mark and a few commenters here my wife and I have binge watched several John le Carré films over the last several weeks: the Guinness and Oldman versions of Tinker Tailor, as well as Smiley's People, and a few days ago, A Most Wanted Man. All quite good entertainment.

      There are many takeaways from le Carré's world applicable to Spygate...too many to list here. But one of them is that we should assuredly not trust anything, not one thing, John Brennan is pumping out.

      It is beyond amazing to me that MSNBC can present this former Communist, lifetime spook and proven liar to the American public as a theoretically objective 'political analyst'...and (seemingly) get away with it.

      Delete
    4. "...present this former Communist...."

      Other than his assertions, never outright repudiation, what evidence is there that the word 'former' is applicable. Much like the media assertion of the negative when Joe-the-plumber called Obama a socialist to his face and Obama merely laughed and walked away.

      Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, was taught to swim by a mallard. My money is that it is a duck.
      Tom S.

      Delete
  13. Not exactly on point, but we see demonstrated daily by the Democrats, 30% - 40% of the country, that America cannot possibly be a "Propositional Nation" by their being utterly incapable of reason on any subject what-so-ever.
    Tom S.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd say, not so much incapable of reason on any subject, as incapable of reason on the subjects of the very Propositions at issue.
      When they want to reason (e.g. on how to grind their axes) they can be quite good at it.

      Delete
    2. In any case, America cannot possibly be a functioning "Propositional Nation", when 30% - 40% of the country disputes virtually every Proposition held to by the majority.
      If it was only 3-4%, or even 13-14%, there may be a decent chance.

      Delete
    3. Precisely.
      Tom S.

      Delete
    4. @Mouse
      @Tom S.

      Implicitly, you ask: What happens when 30% - 40% of the country disputes virtually every Proposition held to by the majority?

      Ruminating about this and what it means to be a Propositional Nation for a few hours led me back to some of our foundational documents.

      I found the Declaration of Independence to be edifying, not because I would necessarily propose one today, but because it puts into words what is the logical conclusion when enough people can no longer agree with the "proposition".

      https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

      Delete