Where Does The Media Get These Idiots?

There was a ruling in federal court in Washington today in which the judge ruled that an indictment by the special prosecutor against Paul Manafort could go to trial despite an attempt by Manafort's lawyers to have the judge say that the special prosecutor lacked the correct jurisdiction to bring the case.  That doesn't seem to be a difficult decision to make, but the media immediately expanded it as if it meant something about the other indictments by Mueller.  You may recall that last week a federal judge in Virginia lambasted the special prosecutor's team for indicting Manafort for a case from 2005 and 2006.  The judge question the prosecutors as to why such an old matter would be within the purview of the special prosecutor's office.  Now that a judge in a different proceeding says that a different indictment on a different matter can go to trial, the media is out in force trying to make today's ruling applicable to the case in Virginia.  These moron reporters talk about the DC judge's decision as if it overturns what the judge in Virginia had to say.  It doesn't do that at all; the reporters are just wrong.

Why can't the media get legal reporters who actually understand how the law works?

Is It Kim Or Is It Xi

The games are afoot in North Korea.  Kim Jung Un canceled the meeting scheduled for Wednesday between the two Koreas.  He also placed a question mark on whether or not the meeting with President Trump scheduled for June in Singapore will go ahead.  The North Koreans say that they are upset by the joint military exercises by the USA and the South Koreans that are currently underway.  They don't demand that those exercises be cancelled, but that is the clear import of the new North Korean message.  This new position by Kim comes just after he met with president Xi of China.  So what is actually going on, and how should the USA respond.

Here's a few things that need to be kept in mind.

1.  When the original plan for the meeting between President Trump and Kim was set up, the North Koreans told the USA that they knew that the joint military exercises would be going ahead as scheduled.  It seems highly unlikely that Kim suddenly decided that the military exercises were enough to cancel meetings to which he previously agreed.  Something else must be at work here.

2.  When Kim originally requested to meet with President Trump, it was right after a meeting held between Kim and president Xi of China.  Now there's a second meeting between Xi and Kim and things change again.  It certainly looks like the Chinese are playing a role in this.

3.  Earlier this week, President Trump seemed to back off a bit on sanctions against a major Chinese phone manufacturer.  That seemed like an odd move.  It may be, however, that Xi announced that he would only have China force the North Koreans to the table so long as the USA backed off on some of the trade sanctions against the Chinese.  The new announcement by Kim may be a way for the Chinese to verify their power over Kim to the White House.

4.  The North Koreans are known to be mercurial and Kim is especially bizarre in his actions.  Still, it seems unlikely that this pull back is part of a long term plan that the North Koreans have been following.  After all, so far the USA has made no concessions to the NKs at all.  On the other hand, Kim released the American hostages and took other steps like closing the nuclear test site that constituted concessions.  North Korea gains nothing from this whole thing if there is no summit with President Trump.  The North Koreans may be changeable, but they are not nuts.

5.  It is possible that Kim has gotten some push back from others in the North Korean leadership and that this move is a way to boost his support among that group.  In most countries, that would be more likely, but this is North Korea.  People are killed for opposing Kim, and the rest of the leadership knows that.  I doubt that there is much open opposition to Kim.

In view of all this, what is the best course of action for the USA?  It's not a difficult question to answer.  President Trump should send word to Kim that the military exercises will continue as planned, the sanctions will stay in place and our patience is wearing thin.  If Kim still wants the summit, we are prepared to attend.  If not, that is his decision to make.  The USA, however, will not change its position under the threat of canceling the summit.  And as to the Chinese, the President ought to tell Xi that the sanctions on the phone company will stay in place if the Chinese continue to use North Korea to undermine the planned summit.  That's a move from strength that both the North Koreans and the Chinese can recognize.  The end result may not be a peace deal with the North Koreans or a trade deal with China.  Nevertheless, that is the course that is most likely to bring peace with the NKs.  It is also the one most likely to get the USA a good deal with the Chinese.

A Simple Question - UPDATE

Earlier today, I wrote about the six month old child who supposedly died from inhaling tear gas at the riot yesterday by the Hamas-organized crowd in Gaza at the border fence with Israel.  My question then was what sort of parents would bring a baby to a place where there was sure to be a riot, fighting and even deaths.  Well, now there's an update.  The AP is reporting that they spoke to the doctor who treated the baby in question.  The doctor says that the child's death had nothing to do with tear gas.  The baby had a pre-existing medical condition which caused the death.  In other words, the Gaza ministry of health lied when it said that the child died due to exposure to tear gas.  What a surprise!  Hamas lied! 

It won't bring the child back no matter what we say.  My question to the parents, however, become even more severe, though.  What sort of parents would take a sick baby to a riot?

A Simple Question

Yesterday a six month old baby died at the Gaza border with Israel due to inhaling tear gas fired by Israeli troops; at least that is the story that Hamas is putting out and the media is running.  There's no way of knowing if this news story is true, but let's assume it is.  It gives rise to a simple question:  what sort of parents take a six month old baby to a riot?

Think about it.  For the last six weeks, there have been a series of "protests" at the border between Gaza and Israel.  At each one of those protests, groups have massed near the border fence and then tried to destroy that fence and attack the Israelis.  In each case, the Israeli soldiers on the other side of the border fence have fired tear gas and used other means to disperse the crowds.  The Israelis have also used live fire to stop the people who approach the fence, try to pull it down, or who use weapons to attack the Israelis on the other side.  That is not a secret.  That means that the parents of this baby took the kid to a site where there was going to be a riot, tear gas, shooting and total chaos.  Then after bringing their child to this incredibly dangerous site, the parents act surprised that their child was injured and died.

What sort of parents do that?

I Didn't Know That

Senator Bernie Sanders has written an article for The Guardian in which he proclaims that by withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, President Trump has placed the USA "on the path to war".  I didn't know that.  And I have to add that after reading Bernie's analysis, I still don't know that.  Indeed, other than being good for a laugh or two, reading Bernie's views was a waste of time.

For example, according to Bernie, the JCPOA (as the Iran deal is known) has stringent inspection mechanisms to prevent Iran from developing nukes.  That's pretty funny.  Since the JCPOA was signed, Iran has refused to allow any inspectors from any agency or country to have access to any military installation across the entire country of Iran.  Think about that for a moment.  What's the most likely place for Iran to carry out its nuclear weapons program?  Will the scientists be in an old warehouse in Teheran or on a military base where they can be protected by the Iranian army?  Well, Iran would allow inspections at the warehouse where the program is certainly NOT located, but there are NO inspections at those military bases where the program certainly is located.  In short, the supposedly "stringent inspection mechanisms" do not exist.  Bernie is either a fool or a liar.

Bernie also says that the President's withdrawal from the JCPOA will make war with North Korea likely.  After all, why would Kim Jung Un agree to any deal with the USA when the next president could just pull the country out of the deal?  Of course, that's where Bernie's true dishonesty really comes into the light.  The JCPOA is not a treaty of the USA.  It is an executive deal that never got the two-thirds agreement in the Senate required to make it the law of the land.  President Obama avoided taking the deal to the Senate as a treaty because he knew that the senators would not approve it.  Obama set it up as something that could be rescinded easily by any future president.  North Korea can insist that the senate ratify any deal in the future and then it will be a treaty.

The reality is that the JCPOA gives Iran approval to develop nukes in just seven years from now.  That is the real path to war.  What President Trump is doing is trying to stop that from happening.

Someone should really tell Bernie to check his facts.

Today in Medical News

First Lady Melania Trump is in the hospital after a surgical procedure on her kidney for a benign condition.  She is expected to stay in the hospital until Friday and then have a full recovery.  We wish her well.

Former senate majority leader Harry Reid is also in the hospital after surgery for pancreatic cancer.  His next step is to be chemotherapy.  His spokesman says he is expected to make a full recovery, but that is usually not the case with pancreatic cancer which is a really bad form of the disease in most cases.  We wish him well too.

 

So The Whole Russia Trump Probe Was A Phony?

I heard Rush Limbaugh today explain the genesis of the Russia-Trump mess and how it started.  Remember back six months ago?  At that point, the common story was that the secret Trump Dossier was and it's information was behind the Russia Trump investigation.  Then suddenly we learned that the dossier had been paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democrat National Committee.  Nevertheless, the dossier was the key evidence used by the FBI and DOJ four times to get approval for a FISA warrant which allowed surveillance of the Trump campaign associates.  The FBI and DOJ never told the FISA court that the dossier was unverified. In fact, the dossier could not be proven after several attempts to do so.  It was phony evidence paid for by the Democrats but used to justify having the government spy on the Republicans under Trump.

After the Trump Dossier blew up in their faces, the Democrats said, almost in unison, "Wait.  The investigation began when Georges Papadopoulos got drunk and told an Australian ambassador about the Russians having Hillary's emails."  It was an alternative cause.  But now that is no longer the case.  According to the latest, the FBI chose Papadopoulos as their target and set him up.  An FBI agent told Papadopoulos in passing that he had heard that the Russians had Hillary's emails.  Then the spy that the FBI enmeshed in the Trump campaign told Papadopouls a second time about the Russians having the emails.  Even the Australian diplomat in the story turns out to be a major contributor to the Clinton Foundation who first bumped into Papadopouls (on purpose) at a London pub.  Then he got Papadapoulos drunk and tried to goad him into talking about what he had heard of Russians having Hillary's emails.  In other words, the FBI used Papadapoulos.  First they fed him information that the Russians had the emails; then they got him to discuss it while he was drunk so that the Australians could report the conversation.

If this is all true, it is a new low for the FBI.  It means that the FBI, the Obama administration and the Democrats worked together to try to set up Donald Trump.  Indeed, this may the "insurance policy" about which Peter Strzok texted his mistress Lisa Page in that now famous text message.