How to read the IG report | Power Line

How to read the IG report | Power Line

Andrew McCarthy is the former Assistant United States Attorney who had substantial professional experience dealing with serious issues of national security. At NR’s Corner he contributes some valuable advice on how to read the report.

Andy notes that Clinton and her deputies declined requests to be interviewed as part of the IG’s investigation. “When a government official or former government official refuses to answer questions in a formal government investigation into potential wrongdoing, this in effect is the assertion of a legal privilege not to speak — otherwise, there is no valid reason not to cooperate.”

He asks: “So what conceivable legal privilege do Clinton, Mills, Sullivan, and Abedin have that would allow them to refuse to answer investigators’ questions? Only one: the Fifth Amendment privilege — i.e., the refusal to answer on the grounds that truthful responses might be incriminating.”

-------------------

The report is devastating, although it transparently strains to soften the blow. For example, it concludes that State’s “longstanding systemic weaknesses” in recordkeeping “go well beyond the tenure of any one Secretary of State.” Yet, it cannot avoid finding that Clinton’s misconduct is singular in that she, unlike her predecessors, systematically used private e-mail for the purpose of evading recordkeeping requirements.

“Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary,” the report states. By failing to do so, and compounding that dereliction with a failure to “surrender[] all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service,” Clinton, the IG finds, “did not comply with the Department’s policies.” 

This articulation of Mrs. Clinton’s offense is also sugar-coated. By saying Clinton violated “policies,” the IG avoids concluding that she violated the law. But the IG adds enough that we can connect the dots ourselves. The “policies,” he elaborates, “were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.” To violate the policies — as Shannen Coffin has explained here at National Review — is to violate the law.

The IG report elucidates that Clinton and her aides knew this to be the case. Politico notes:

The report states that its findings are based on interviews with current Secretary of State John Kerry and his predecessors — Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, but that Clinton and her deputies declined the IG’s requests for interviews.  

Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and Huma Abedin are among those who did not cooperate with the investigation. 

The importance of this goes unstated but we can connect the dots. When a government official or former government official refuses to answer questions in a formal government investigation into potential wrongdoing, this in effect is the assertion of a legal privilege not to speak — otherwise, there is no valid reason not to cooperate.

Hillary Clinton | email scandal |Project X

Hillary Clinton | email scandal |Project X

As first lady, Hillary was embroiled in another scheme to bury sensitive White House e-mails, known internally as “Project X.”

In 1999, as investigators looked into Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate and other scandals involving the then-first lady, it was discovered that more than 1 million subpoenaed e-mails were mysteriously “lost” due to a “glitch” in a West Wing computer server.

Freddie Gray and Jihad: Narrative v. Fact | PJ Media

Freddie Gray and Jihad: Narrative v. Fact | PJ Media

I’ve been fortunate to have had two professional careers, the first one in the courtroom as a trial lawyer and the second in journalism. I did not need the latter experience, though, to notice the stark difference between these two worlds.

When I prosecuted the “Blind Sheikh” (Omar Abdel Rahman) and the jihadist cell that bombed the World Trade Center and then plotted a simultaneous attack on several New York City landmarks, the organs of government that speak to the public through the media were making like irresponsible journalists. That is, they were eschewing facts and evidence, obsessively peddling a counterfactual narrative, to wit:

There is only one “true” Islam, and it is resolutely peaceful (indeed, being a “religion of peace” is apparently its only identifiable attribute). Therefore, the terrorist acts plotted and committed by a cabal of men who just happened to be Muslim had utterly nothing to do with Islam, notwithstanding the jihadists’ proclamations to the contrary.

By contrast, in the courtroom, criminal allegations cannot be proved absent convincing factual evidence -- beyond a reasonable doubt -- that unanimously persuades jurors of the suspects’ guilt.

Thus, though we prosecutors were formally part of the government, it was as if we were inhabiting a cocoon insulated from the fictional government narrative. Indeed, the judge repeatedly reminded the jurors of their oath to decide the case solely based on the facts proved and the controlling law, not bias, fear or favor -- which was a 1990s way of saying “not narrative.”

The upshot of all this? No matter what “religion of peace” blather was coming out of Main Justice in Washington or the White House press apparatus, in our New York City federal courtroom a short distance from the Twin Towers, we were not only permitted but obliged as government attorneys to prove the truth:

1. There are mainstream interpretations of Islam that endorse war against non-Muslims to establish Allah’s law (sharia);
2. these are literalist interpretations that draw directly on Islamic scripture;
3. the interpretations (Salafism, Wahhabism, Islamic supremacism -- collectively, what we hopefully refer to as “radical” Islam) are urged on young Muslims (mostly men) by influential sharia scholars like the Blind Sheikh, whose powerful influence owes solely and only to their mastery of the doctrine;
4. based on those incitements, these young men are radicalized into jihadism, plotting and committing acts of terrorism.

Those were the facts. Our evidence proved them incontestably. That is the only way we were able to convict jihadists -- not only in my prosecution, but in case after terrorism case.

While the government’s skewed media narrative continued undeterred, those prosecutions, based on real facts, became the national-security part of government’s best source of intelligence on how jihadist organizations actually function.

I recall all this today because it explains what we are now seeing in the travesty that is Baltimore’s prosecution of six police officers in the death of Freddie Gray.

In Baltimore, the municipal government -- working hand in glove with Obama’s federal government -- has its narrative: the “Black Lives Matter” storyline which holds that Gray’s death in police custody was a cold-blooded murder caused by pervasive racism.

As was the case in the 1990s terrorism cases, the official government media narrative had nothing to do with the actual facts of the case. Gray’s death was an accident. Baltimore’s criminal justice system is among the most thoroughly integrated in the country.

The critical difference between then and now, though, is that in the absence of evidence, the prosecutors are trying to sell their propaganda as proof.

Not surprisingly, it is a rout so far. Prosecutors have been unable to convict the first two police officers, most recently officer Edward Nero, who was acquitted on all charges Monday.

Not surprisingly, the only way the prosecution stands any chance of winning is to incite an atmosphere of intimidation.

Jurors must be made to fear that unless they convict -- regardless of the dearth of evidence -- there may well be rioting and blood in the streets.

If I may try to offer some common sense that distinguishes actual justice from “social justice,” let’s consider both the case of Mr. Gray and the purpose of the criminal justice system.

Gray’s death is a tragedy. It was clearly an accident, one with a catastrophic outcome. But think for a moment: What is it that makes a tragedy a tragedy?

It is that something disproportionately horrific occurs absent any intent to cause it -- a terrible accident, an earthquake, etc.

Now consider: What is the criminal justice system for? It is our society’s means of addressing situations in which people have cause intentional harm -- often, lethal harm -- to other people.

It is not about tragedy; it is about willful wrongdoing. Yes, crimes have tragic fallout for victims and their families; but a crime is not a tragedy, just like an act of war is not a tragedy -- it is quite intentional egregious behavior, not mistake or accident.

This is not to say that the absence of criminal intent equates to the absence of impeachable behavior. It is simply to point out that the criminal justice system is not the fitting way to address all behavior that results in bad outcomes.

When there is no criminal intent, there is no crime, but that does not mean there was no wrong done. That is why police can and should be subjected to internal disciplinary measures when their performance is shoddy. It is why the civil courts are available to address damages caused by negligence.

In sum, the criminal justice system is no place for narrative. It is the place for adjudicating intentional wrongs that cause specific, usually premeditated harm. If a prosecutor tries to prove a case based on an emotionally driven narrative rather than evidence-based fact, the prosecution is sure to fail miserably unless the prosecutor succeeds in corrupting the system.

By contrast, when the justice system is working properly, it is the place where we acquaint ourselves with reality. It is the place that puts the lie to a narrative.

Something Stinks: The “Fishy” Vince Foster Case

Something Stinks: The “Fishy” Vince Foster Case

But as AIM founder and late chairman Reed Irvine and I reported on the case, there were so many anomalies that the Special Division of the Court of Appeals ordered an appendix added to Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s report on the death of Vincent Foster. The appendix exposed serious flaws in the report that cast strong doubt on the suicide finding. These anomalies included:

• No bullet was ever found in Fort Marcy Park, even though Foster supposedly shot himself there.
• The gun that was found in his hand has never been positively identified as his.
• Foster’s fingerprints were not found on the gun.

Many people in the media claim that numerous investigations confirmed it was a suicide. Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post says there were “five official investigations into Foster’s death, conducted by professional investigators, forensic experts, psychologists, doctors and independent prosecutors with unlimited resources.” CNN’s Jake Tapper says it is “shameful” for Trump to question these findings.

But the official government investigations, including the one run by ardent “Republican” Kenneth Starr, were flawed. Nobody knew this better than Miguel Rodriguez, the lead investigator of Foster’s death for Independent Counsel Starr. He uncovered evidence that Foster had not committed suicide. However, Rodriguez, the prosecutor in charge of the grand jury investigation of Foster’s death, resigned because of interference with his investigation. As Irvine noted, “If he had been permitted to complete the grand jury investigation, he would have exposed the many lies that were told to cover up Foster’s murder.” Irvine exposed many of these lies in a 2001 edition of the AIM Report.

Hugh Turley, a researcher, recently wrote an article about the case for AIM. It was titled, “Hillary Clinton’s Continuing Lack of Interest in Cover-up of Vince Foster’s Murder.”

He confirms that:

“Associate Independent Counsel Rodriguez, an experienced prosecutor, thought he ‘was scoring big points’ for Ken Starr investigating the death of Vince Foster, President Bill Clinton’s deputy White House counsel. Rodriguez’s assistant Lucia Rambusch thought they ‘would be getting pats on the back’ for uncovering evidence Foster had been murdered. Instead, according to Deputy Independent Counsel Hickman Ewing’s notes, Rodriguez said that Deputy Independent Counsel Mark Tuohey ‘cancelled everything [he] was doing’ and ‘undermined everything [he] had done.’”

The case is an old one, a “cold case” as they say. But if there’s an ongoing cover-up of a murder, Trump, if elected president, could order a new investigation. Such a probe might show media complicity in the cover-up that is documented in the appendix.

Some other critical facts:

• Foster’s car, a 1989 gray Honda, was not at Ft. Marcy Park when he died.
• The .38 revolver found in his hand was not the gun that killed him. It was not his gun. The caliber of the gun was too large to be consistent with the small hole in the side of Foster’s neck. A memo by Rodriguez found at the National Archives stated that “the corpse was staged with the revolver brought by” investigators.
• Foster’s so-called suicide note was a forgery. It said nothing about suicide. Handwriting experts say the note, which had no fingerprints on it, wasn’t even written by Foster. The note was found in a briefcase that had previously been searched.

Yes, something was, and is, very fishy in the case of the death of Vincent Foster. Media attacks on Trump are a diversion from the media’s documented unwillingness to thoroughly investigate the case. Irvine said at the time, “The cover-up is so transparent to those familiar with the facts that it is maddening to see those responsible make America look like a nation of dolts. Not that we haven’t tried to make the truth known, but the brilliant men and women who decide what’s fit to print and to air in the traditional media need to have their closed minds pried open.”

Irvine’s comments are even more appropriate now.

*Special thanks to researcher Hugh Turley for assisting with this article. For more information on the Foster cover-up, please go to the website www.FBIcover-up.com

FBI Director Questions Hillary Clinton's Description of FBI Email Investigation - ABC News

FBI Director Questions Hillary Clinton's Description of FBI Email Investigation - ABC News

Even though Hillary Clinton has repeatedly described the FBIprobe over her use of a private email server as a "security inquiry," FBI Director James Comey today questioned the use of that phrase.
“I don’t know what that means," Comey told reporters today in Washington, D.C. "We’re conducting an investigation. That’s the bureau’s business. That’s what we do."
One reporter noted that former Secretary of State Clinton often refers to it as a "security inquiry."
The word "investigation" -- "it’s in our name,” Comey responded. “And I’m not familiar with the term ‘security inquiry.’”
In the past several months, Comey has repeatedly referred to this probe as an "investigation," including in a legal document filed in a freedom of information lawsuit related to her email case, related to Clinton's use of a private email server for official communication during her tenure as secretary of state.
....
Sources have told ABC News that so far the investigation has found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
Clinton has long maintained that she never mishandled, sent or received any email “marked” classified on her private server. But government reviews of the 55,000 emails she turned over to the State Department determined over a thousand of them contained information that later had to be upgraded to classified and withheld from public view, including 22 emails that had to be deemed "top secret."
Also this week, it was revealed that almost all the email from Secretary Clinton’s top IT staffer during her tenure at the State Department appears to be missing. That staffer, Bryan Pagliano, has become a key witness in the FBI investigation and has been granted immunity by the Justice Department in exchange for his cooperation.
....

How a FOIA Request into Hillary Clinton's Emails Revealed a Criminal Investigation - Reason.com

How a FOIA Request into Hillary Clinton's Emails Revealed a Criminal Investigation - Reason.com

The essence of her husband's defense is that the secrets were not secrets when she saw them and the investigation of her is all "a game."

We know that the FBI is getting closer to Hillary Clinton, because Bill Clinton had not addressed her email issues publicly before last weekend. The defense he offered belies the facts and the law.

He argued that prosecuting his wife over her emails is akin to prosecuting someone for driving a car in a 50 mile-per-hour zone at 40 mph because the police have arbitrarily and without notice changed the speed limit to 35 mph.

The implication in his argument is that Mrs. Clinton's emails were retroactively classified as confidential, secret or top-secret after she received or sent them and therefore she had no notice of their sensitivity.

His argument is unavailing for two reasons. The first is that it is untrue. Emails are confidential, secret or top-secret at the time they are created, whether marked or not.

The second reason is that Mrs. Clinton signed an oath on her first full day as secretary of state — after she received a two-hour tutorial from two FBI agents on the proper care and lawful handling of state secrets. In that oath, she acknowledged that she had an obligation to recognize and protect state secrets on the basis of the sensitive nature of the information contained in them — whether they bore classified warnings or markings or not.

State secrets are materials that, if revealed, could harm the national security of the United States.

One of the 39 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits brought in connection with Mrs. Clinton's email scandal was filed recently by Jason Leopold, a reporter for Vice News. He seeks copies of the emails Clinton tried unsuccessfully to wipe clean from her server, as well as copies of communications between the DOJ and Mrs. Clinton.

The DOJ moved to dismiss his lawsuit, and in support of its motion, it filed a secret affidavit with the court, signed by an FBI agent familiar with the bureau's investigation of Mrs. Clinton. In its brief filed the day before Mr. Clinton made his silly speeding prosecution analogy, the DOJ — which also once worked for him — characterized the secret affidavit as a summary of the investigation of Mrs. Clinton. The DOJ argued that compliance with Leopold's FOIA request would jeopardize that investigation by exposing parts of it prematurely.

In the same brief, the DOJ referred to the investigation of Mrs. Clinton as a law enforcement proceeding.

That was the first public acknowledgment by the DOJ that it is investigating criminal behavior — a law enforcement proceeding — and it directly contradicts Mrs. Clinton's oft-repeated assertions that the FBI investigation is merely a routine review of the State Department's classification procedures.

Many in the legal and intelligence communities have discounted her assertions because reviewing classification procedures of the State Department is not a function of the FBI, but now we have the government's own words that its investigation of Mrs. Clinton's email handling is one implicating law enforcement. Since that late Friday filing, Mrs. Clinton has ceased referring publicly to the FBI probe as an evaluation of the State Department's security procedures.

The XX Committee Hillary EmailGate Reader | The XX Committee

The XX Committee Hillary EmailGate Reader | The XX Committee

Since Hillary’s strange travails with IT and mishandling official secrets appear to be far from over, this is a living document: I’ll add new links as they appear.



Panama Papers Reveal Clinton’s Kremlin Connection (7 Apr 2016)


Hillary Has an NSA Problem (18 Mar 2016)



NYT Report Debunks Severity of EmailGate With Classic Clintonian Wordsmithing (04 Mar 2016)



National Security Disasters and the Latest Clinton Email Dump (06 Feb 2016)
Today on the Federalist Radio Hour, John Schindler, national security columnist at the Observer, security consultant, and former NSA analyst, talked on the most recent news from the State Department regarding Hillary Clinton’s emails and discussed other national security threats around the world.


Schindler said the emails have turned out to be even worse than he expected. “Team Hillary has been pushing back on this–on what was marked and what wasn’t and these words games they specialize in,” he said. “Twenty-two (emails) were judged to be ‘Top Secret’ entirely, now pushing 30 based on the latest indications and there are some real bombshells in what has not been released.”


Later in the hour Schindler explained the situations unfolding in the Middle East and Russia, and how a future president must to address them in the next year. “Whoever becomes President on the 20th of January of next year is going to face a wicked problem in Syria and the surrounding states due to the catastrophe that has befallen Syria since 2011,” he said. “There are no good options here, after what President Obama has overseen.”


Hillary Clinton Put Spies’ Lives at Risk (01 Feb 2016)



Why Hillary’s EmailGate Matters (28 Jan 2016)



Hillary’s EmailGate Goes Nuclear (09 Jan 2016)



Hillary’s Email Troubles Are Far From Over (19 Oct 2015)



Spies Don’t Buy Hillary’s Email Excuses (10 Sep 2015)



Hillary’s Sources, Methods, and Lies (09 Sep 2015)



What Russian Intelligence Knows About Hillary Clinton (01 Sep 2015)



Hillary’s EmailGate: Understanding Security Classification (16 Sep 2015)



Will Hillary’s Emails Burn the White House? (03 Sep 2015)



Hillary’s Mounting EmailGate Troubles (26 Aug 2016)



EmailGate Gets Worse for Hillary Clinton (24 Aug 2015)



The Spy Satellite Secrets in Hillary’s Emails (12 Aug 2015)

Patterico's Pontifications » Liberal Bias in the Wording of a News Article

Patterico's Pontifications » Liberal Bias in the Wording of a News Article

Kerry Put On Defensive About Iraq Over the past week, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have thrown Sen. John F. Kerry on the defensive with a daily assault designed to tarnish his credentials as a possible commander in chief. But the orchestrated attacks also revealed the president’s vulnerabilities on the issue that continues to shape the presidential campaign as much as any other. The volleys over terrorism came after Kerry and his advisers believed they had put behind them most questions about his capacity to lead the country in a war on terrorism. Instead, Kerry and his advisers allowed themselves to be drawn into a new debate about Iraq and terrorism and were forced to rebut daily charges that Kerry has equivocated and sent conflicting signals on national security. Kerry advisers see the criticisms as both wrong and distorted. But the exchanges are a reminder of how the issue of Iraq has bedeviled Kerry’s candidacy first in the Democratic primaries and now the general election as he has navigated between the demands of the antiwar faction in his party and a desire to project strong leadership to a general-election audience. The attacks also underscore the urgency within Bush’s campaign to deny Kerry a sustained post-convention bounce. With some polls showing that Kerry made clear gains against Bush on terrorism and national security, the president’s weakness on the issues that once were his great strengths is on clear display. More than half the country disapproves of how the president has handled Iraq, and reservations about the situation there have spilled over into attitudes toward Bush on terrorism. The fighting there this week is a reminder that Iraq is far from stabilized, regardless of how much Bush talks about the progress that has been made. Given that reality, Bush has gone on the offensive against Kerry. Kerry designed his convention in Boston around a single goal, to establish the Democratic nominee as capable of being commander in chief. He assembled his former Swift boat crewmates and retired military brass to offer testimonials to his courage, experience and judgment. Bolstered by some polls, Kerry advisers argued that the four-day convention did exactly what they had hoped. But Kerry left himself susceptible to criticism with his effort to draw clear distinctions with Bush on how he would have dealt with Iraq before the war and how he would differ with Bush on the future course in Iraq and the war on terrorism. Bush and Cheney have seized on Kerry’s comment that he would vote again to give Bush authority to go to war, his claim that he would try to reduce troop strength significantly during his first six months in office and his comment about waging a more sensitive war on terrorism. The GOP attacks followed a familiar pattern. Bush struck first, elevating the issue and drawing more attention to the criticism than any of his surrogates could have attracted. Then Cheney moved in with tougher language designed to raise questions about Kerry’s reliability. Bush and Cheney also selectively interpreted Kerry’s words to cast them in the worst possible light. At the beginning of the week, Kerry said that, even if he had known then what is known now about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, he still would have voted to give Bush the authority to go to war. But he qualified that by criticizing Bush for going to war without more international support and for rushing to war without a plan to win the peace. “I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has,” he said. Bush chose to ignore that qualifier. Cheney seized on a comment Kerry had made to the Unity convention of minority journalists about how he would differ from Bush on terrorism. “I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history,” he said. Cheney fired back that sensitivity never won a war. “America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive,” he said. “A ‘sensitive war’ will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more.” Kerry allies accuse the vice president of taking the comment out of context. Bush allies say it is Kerry who has sown confusion with his own words. Bush has also put Kerry on the defensive over a comment the Democrat made about troop levels in Iraq. In an interview with National Public Radio, Kerry said, “I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq, and that’s my plan.” Bush responded that establishing artificial timetables for troop withdrawals will embolden insurgents in Iraq to wait out the United States and will make Iraqi citizens more timid in taking responsibility to defeat the insurgents themselves. Kerry advisers said Kerry was only setting a goal, not setting out a timetable. Troop reductions, they said, will depend on bringing more stability to Iraq and training more Iraqis as a security force. But the Kerry advisers said the other key is to bring in troops from other countries to share the burden. They contended that Bush has so poisoned relationships that only a new president can succeed on that front. Some European diplomats and politicians have privately cast doubt on whether Kerry could easily do what Bush has not. On the campaign trail, Bush devotes a significant portion of his stump speech to a vigorous defense of his actions in Iraq, which reflects his weakened position politically. But in defending himself as someone who has had no doubts about his decision to dislodge Saddam Hussein, he has contrasted himself with Kerry and has tried to cast doubt on his rival as an equivocator under whose leadership Hussein would still be in power. In Phoenix on Tuesday night, Bush explained his decision to invade Iraq this way: “I had a choice to make. My choice was do I forget the lessons of September the 11th and hope for the best and trust the word and deeds of a madman, or do I take action to defend America. I will defend America every time.” Bush’s goal appears aimed at shifting the focus of the debate from what has happened in Iraq to who can best be trusted to keep the country safe in the future, and he casts the choice as one between a president who knows the difference between good and evil and a challenger who finds shades of gray wherever he looks. Kerry is equally determined to fight back on his own terms and to try to hold the president responsible for what has happened to the image of the United States around the world. It is a debate that will go a long way in determining the outcome of the election in November.

Kerry On Defensive About Iraq Over the past week, Sen. John F. Kerry has been on the defensive, confronted with mounting concerns about his credentials as a possible commander in chief. In attempting to respond, Kerry and his allies have mounted an orchestrated attack on the president’s handling of the Iraq war. The dispute over Iraq continues to influence the presidential campaign. Kerry has tried to avoid any further questions about his capacity to lead the country in a war on terrorism. However, his campaign has been dogged by growing criticism that Kerry has equivocated and sent conflicting signals on national security. As a result of these mounting questions, the Kerry campaign has been thrown back on its heels, with Kerry and his advisers forced into a defensive mode. The apparent strategy of the Kerry campaign is to try to paint the growing criticism as both wrong and distorted. But critics say that the issue of Iraq has bedeviled Kerry’s candidacy throughout his campaign, as he has tried to appease the antiwar faction in his party, while at the same time attempting to project strong leadership to a general-election audience. Polls have failed to show a sustained post-convention bounce for Kerry. Bush allies note that, though recent polls may appear to show Kerry gaining on Bush on national security issues, Bush still leads Kerry on these issues. Moreover, they say, the polls do not take account of recent questions raised about Kerry. Almost half of the country approves of how the president has handled Iraq, though reservations about the situation there — fueled by attacks by Kerry and rabid opponents of the war, such as Howard Dean — have spilled over into attitudes toward Bush on terrorism. Although Iraq is far from stabilized, sources close to Bush point out that much progress has been made. Kerry hoped that the Democratic convention would establish him as capable of being commander in chief. Kerry advisers have tried to argue that the goals of the convention were met. Some of Kerry’s former Swift boat crewmates claimed that Kerry has shown courage, experience and judgment. However, since the convention, hundreds of veterans, including many who served with Kerry, have argued to the contrary. Bush campaign advisers point to recent controversial comments by Kerry, including his statement that he would wage a more “sensitive” war on terrorism. Bush advisers also dispute that Kerry would have done a better job on Iraq before the war, or that Kerry would do a better job in the future on Iraq or the war on terror. They note that Kerry has said that he would vote again to give Bush authority to go to war. Yet Kerry admits that he would try to reduce troop strength significantly during his first six months in office. The Bush campaign believes that Kerry is so weak on national security issues that they have advised Bush to raise the issue personally, which has had the expected effect of drawing more attention to the criticism. Vice-President Cheney has echoed Bush’s concerns with comments that highlight the growing questions about Kerry’s reliability. At the beginning of the week, Kerry said that, even if he had known then what is known now about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, he still would have voted to give Bush the authority to go to war. But he qualified that by criticizing Bush for going to war without more international support and for allegedly rushing to war without a plan to win the peace. Kerry did not explain how he would have convinced nations like France to go along with the decision to invade Iraq. Cheney pointed to a comment Kerry had made to the Unity convention of minority journalists about how he would differ from Bush on terrorism. “I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history,” Kerry said. Cheney noted that “sensitivity” never won a war. “America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive,” he said. “A ‘sensitive war’ will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more.” Although Kerry allies try to argue that Cheney took Kerry’s comment out of context, Bush allies respond that Kerry has sown confusion with his own words. Kerry also found himself on the defensive over a comment that he made about troop levels in Iraq. In an interview with National Public Radio, Kerry said, “I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq, and that’s my plan.” Bush explained that establishing artificial timetables for troop withdrawals will inevitably embolden insurgents in Iraq to wait out the United States and will make Iraqi citizens more timid in taking responsibility to defeat the insurgents themselves. Kerry advisers claimed Kerry was only setting a goal, not setting out a timetable. They argued that troop reductions will depend on bringing more stability to Iraq and training more Iraqis as a security force. Although Bush has tried to convince other countries to share the burden by providing more troops, Kerry claims that he will have more success on this front. Kerry partisans claim that Bush has poisoned relationships with other countries, and that Kerry could convince these countries to provide troops. European diplomats and politicians privately dispute this claim. Bush has argued that his actions in Iraq were necessary to defend the American people. Bush advisers dispute claims by the Kerry campaign that Bush’s emphasis on Iraq suggests weakness. They say that Bush has shown himself to be a strong leader who harbors no doubts about his decision to dislodge Saddam Hussein. In stark contrast, they say, Kerry is an equivocator under whose leadership Hussein would still be in power. In Phoenix on Tuesday night, Bush explained his decision to invade Iraq this way: “I had a choice to make. My choice was do I forget the lessons of September the 11th and hope for the best and trust the word and deeds of a madman, or do I take action to defend America. I will defend America every time.” Bush advisers explain that Bush wishes the country to focus on a single issue: who can best be trusted to keep the country safe in the future? Bush casts the choice as one between a president who knows the difference between good and evil and a challenger who finds shades of gray wherever he looks. The apparent strategy of the Kerry campaign is to shift the focus to a different issue: the alleged negative image of the United States that Kerry claims Bush has created around the world. It is a debate that will go a long way in determining the outcome of the election in November.

The Rev 3.0: Reduxing Vox Day: PermaBanning Puppies

The Rev 3.0: Reduxing Vox Day: PermaBanning Puppies

Almost every other rule change proposal other than E Pluribus Hugo I've seen leads to a situation similar to EPH. The rule changes will not be enough to squeeze the Rabids out, leading to a Temporary Cease-Fire or Balkanization.

There is one exception, that being banning people from WorldCon based on their nominations. This is one that could actually work, and at less cost than you may think.

“Malicious intent” is not required to break the law in Hillary Clinton’s case « Hot Air

“Malicious intent” is not required to break the law in Hillary Clinton’s case « Hot Air

New Book on Rape Culture Hysteria | PJ Media

New Book on Rape Culture Hysteria | PJ Media

Rape Culture Hysteria: Fixing the Damage Done to Men and Women offers a comprehensive overview and debunking of the "rape culture" myth that has devastated campuses and is spilling into Main Street America. An ideological madness is grotesquely distorting North America's view of sexuality. The book applies sanity to the claims that men are natural rapists and our culture encourages sexual violence.


Written by a libertarian feminist and rape survivor, Rape Culture Hysteria opens with a highly personal appeal to depoliticize rape and treat it instead as a crime. Victims need to heal. Politicizing their pain and rage is a callous political maneuver that harms victims, women and men.


Chapter One: The Fiction of the Rape Culture defines the "rape culture" and explains why it does not exist in North America. It glances back at how the fiction became embedded into society, especially in academia. Then it looks forward to an emerging rape culture trend that will deeply impact daily life: microaggressions.


Chapter Two: Intellectual Framework and Myth History of Rape Culture. The myth did not arise in an intellectual vacuum. In a straight-forward manner, Chapter Two explains the theories upon which the rape culture is based, including social construction, gender, patriarchy, post-Marxism, and social justice. It rejects three of the rape culture's founding beliefs: rape is facilitated by society; men have created a mass psychology of rape; and, rape is a part of normal life.


Chapter Three: Dynamics of the Hysteria and Psychology of Rape Culture True Believers. The dynamics of rape culture politics are exposed through the behavior of its social justice warriors. A recent travesty is used to showcase those dynamics. On November 19, 2014, Rolling Stone accused members of a University of Virginia fraternity of gang-raping a female student. The accusation was quickly revealed as untrue. The unraveling at U-Va. is a perfect vehicle to illustrate how rape culture dogma is maintained even when it is revealed to be untrue. The chapter discusses effective tactics with which to handle social justice warriors.


Chapter Four: Data, False and True. The rape culture myth is based on untrue and unfounded "facts," which have been repeatedly refuted. Yet they lumber on as zombie stats, kept alive by those to whom the lies are useful and so are repeated like a mantra that drowns out contradicting evidence. This chapter examines of some of the more prevalent zombie stats such as "one in every 4 or 5 women will be raped in their lifetimes." Where did the faux "facts" originate? What evidence, if any, supports them? Which stats better reflect reality?

ID laws do not suppress voters: Opposing view

ID laws do not suppress voters: Opposing view

ID laws do not suppress voters: Opposing view

Hans A. von Spakovsky 7:08 p.m. EDT April 3, 2016

Opponents who say there is no voter fraud are wrong.

Polls consistently show that Americans — regardless of race or ethnicity — agree that requiring identification to vote is a common-sense way to ensure the integrity of our elections. The repeated narrative pushed by critics that this “suppresses” votes is a myth.

That claim has been disproven by the turnout results in states such as Georgia and Indiana, whose voter ID laws have been in place for years. In fact, these states experienced almost no problems despite apocalyptic predictions of opponents. The number of Americans who don’t already have an ID is minuscule — and every state with a voter ID law gives a free ID to anyone who can’t afford one.

Opponents who say there is no voter fraud are wrong. As the Supreme Court noted in 2008 when it upheld Indiana’s photo ID law, we have a long, documented history of voter fraud in this country — and it could make the difference in a close election. That is why states should also be requiring proof-of-citizenship to register to prevent non-citizens from illegally voting.

Critics also complain about reductions in early voting, claiming that reduces turnout. But studies show that early voting could actually reduce turnout. This might be because get-out-the-vote efforts by campaigns that get diffused over a much longer period of time are not as effective.

In the final weeks before an election, previously unknown information about a candidate could come out that might be important to a voter’s choice, but a voter who cast her ballot early cannot change it. Because Arizona has early voting, almost 100,000 Arizonans wasted their votes for candidates who were in the Republican presidential primary race when early voting started but had dropped out by Election Day on March 22.

The right to vote is one of our most cherished. Securing the integrity of the election process is a fundamental requirement of protecting that right.

Hans A. von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, is co-author of Who’s Counting?: How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk.

Vox Popoli: Because it's worked so well so far

Vox Popoli: Because it's worked so well so far

What I find so interesting about the SJW-SF reaction is that they simply never stop to question their basic assumptions or the effectiveness of their tactics. This all started when Patrick Nielsen Hayden and Teresa Nielsen Hayden, appropos of a single syndicated op/ed column about Susan Estrich's attack on Michael Kinsley, broached the possibility excluding me from the Nebula jury back in 2005. Then Patrick Nielsen Hayden and John Scalzi joined forces to force the SFWA Board to exclude me in 2013 by threatening to quit, after which the Hugo voters did their best to exclude me in 2014.




How has that worked out for them?




The SJWs in science fiction couldn't imagine that we would take over the 2015 nominations. They were highly confident that we couldn't dominate the nominations this year. And I have no doubt that they are absolutely certain we can't possibly take over the Business Meeting.




Want to bet the Hugo Awards on that?




Go ahead, Secret Masters, make a special rule aimed at me and the Rabid Puppies a legitimate tactic at my disposal if you dare. This is your fair warning.

We can design a system that’s proof against accident and stupidity; but we can’t design one that’s proof against deliberate malice…

— 2001 A Space Odyssey, Arthur C. Clarke