Whither the VEEP

For John, BLUF:  Life is not fair, especially in politics.  Otherwise. I would be a State Rep here in Massachusetts.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Kamala… They Are Coming for You

Here is the sub-headline:

The Cackling Vice President, Kamala Harris, is the domino that will fall first.

From American Spectator, by Political Strategist Arnold Steinberg, 2 July 2023, 11:08 PM.

Here is the lede plus six:

oe Biden is Inspector Jacques Clouseau.

We don’t know whether to laugh (Clouseau) or cry (Biden).  In fantasy, Clouseau bumbled his way to success.  In reality, Biden is a failure; worse, a danger to himself and to others.  He is America’s nightmare, more hazardous to the world than climate change.

The dark comedy of Biden’s mental decay/physical decline is evidenced daily when his caretakers let him out, after dosing his secret, volatile medication.  Sleep apnea, previously undisclosed, is the latest alibi for his dysfunction. His medical records are no more transparent than Hunter Biden’s tax returns, and the president’s doctor won’t come clean.

Biden was elected because complicit media enabled his cynical handlers in 2020 to keep him under wraps.  But the luster of the perpetual coverup has faded.  Just as the media can no longer ignore inflation — because people feel it, the media now highlight Biden’s cognitive debilitation, because it’s in plain view.  And two more reasons:  (a) the discredited and biased legacy media are desperate for recovering credibility and (b) the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, et al. see Biden as a loser and want him out.

The once servile White House press corps has ramped up the age issue, thus intentionally priming voters to look for Biden’s senior moments.  Party bosses talk up Biden, but privately fret about his decay.  The recent coverage of the DOJ/FBI/IRS whistleblowers insures a slow water torture, the drip-drip revelations of what the president’s detractors call “the Biden crime family.”

Not exactly waterboarding, but Joe Biden is in no shape to withstand “water dripping on the forehead for a very long time… the stress to drive its victim insane.” How much can Biden take?  Biden — like Putin — already is delusional and confused.  While Putin believes he’s CEO not of an emasculated Russia but of the formidable USSR, Biden believes that he is in charge, not his ideologue-puppeteers.

In Biden worship, the media parroted the Democratic party line, just as Pravda in the former Soviet Union spoke for the Communist party.  Power brokers in the Democratic Party and dominant media remain synergistic — thus, the “new journalism” is a precursor for where the Democrats go next: inevitably, Joe Biden is on the way out, and how plausible for him to claim health as the reason for not running, but how implausible for Kamala Harris to be president!

The way I see it.

And before the Primaries begin.

But, it seems a bit unfair.  There is something going on here.  Vice President Harris didn't get to her current poosition by being stupid.  She is a law school graduate and passed the California Bar (Second try, but former California Governors Jerry Brown and Pete Wilson both failed the first time, as did Senstor Hillary Clinton in DC).  She was elected as California Attorney Generl and US Senator.  There is something of substance there.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Prosecutorial Misconduct

For John, BLUF:  The Department of Justice is working hard to convict Presidential Candidate Donsald J Trump of somesthing.  Maybe too hard.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

If Alleged DOJ Misconduct Is True, A Judge Could Dismiss The Whole Case Against Trump

Here is the sub-headline:

The conduct claimed is perhaps unprecedented and certainly flagrant.  If proven true, the judge would be well within her rights to consider dismissal.

From The Federalist, by Former Federal Prosecutor Will Scharf, 5 July 2023.

Here is the lede plus two:

Lost in the breathless headlines over the indictment of President Trump for alleged violations of the Espionage Act is a story that deserves much more attention than it has received thus far: the allegation that a senior official at the Department of Justice attempted to shake down Trump’s co-defendant’s lawyer.  It is a scandal in the making that could result in the investigation of senior DOJ officials, which should lead to public congressional hearings, and that might even result in the entire case against Trump being dismissed.

Trump’s co-defendant is Waltine “Walt” Nauta, a Navy valet who served in Trump’s White House and who remained a personal aide to Trump after he left office.  Several weeks ago, Nauta’s lawyer, a distinguished, highly-regarded Washington attorney named Stanley Woodward, leveled accusations against senior members of the Department of Justice, including DOJ Counterintelligence Chief Jay Bratt, who is now a part of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team of prosecutors.  According to news reports, Woodward claimed in a sealed letter to D.C. District Chief Judge James Boasberg that, in a meeting to discuss Nauta’s case, Bratt indicated that Woodward’s application to be a D.C. Superior Court judge could be impacted if he could not get Nauta to testify against Trump.

If true, and I see no reason why Woodward would make such a threat up — and especially no reason why Woodward would risk his career by making such a representation to a federal judge — Bratt’s alleged misconduct could result in heavy sanctions, and is a potential ground for dismissal of the entire case against Nauta and Trump.  Depending on what exactly was said, Bratt could even face criminal prosecution himself.

Presidential Candidate Donald J Trump has a lot of flaws.  I am reading about some of them in Commander in Cheat, a 2020 book mailed to me by my buddy, Juan.  However, it is up to the Voters to decide if Mr Trump's flaws are greater than those of his opponent.  In 2016 they said no.  In 2020 they said yes.

Comparing candidates is the job of the Voters  It is not the job of the US Department of Justice.  We went through that with Saint James Comey, who took it upon himself to save the nation and the world.  We, the Voters, do not need that kind of help.  If Mr Trump broke some law, fine, go after him.  However, let us have no DOJ intervention to "save" the nation (or President Joe Biden).

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Road Not Taken

For John, BLUF:  War is an activity in which chance plays a large role.  In this case chance gave us the Battle of Gettysburg, but might have given us the Battle of Pittsburg.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The forts of Pittsburgh

From The Pittsburgh Post Gazette, by Reporter Salena Zito, 2 July 2023, 5:30 AM.

Here is the lede plus three:

On the afternoon of June 18, 1863, the city of Pittsburgh was thrown into a state of panic when rumors flew through the streets that Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s army had occupied the Shenandoah Valley in force — and was preparing an incursion into Western Pennsylvania. In short order, Union General William T.H. Brooks, whose command of the Department of the Monongahela was located in East Liberty, rode into the city and confirmed to a swelling and “excited” crowd that he was had received an “urgent dispatch” from General Henry Halleck, the General-in-Chief of all Union forces at the War Department.  “It is thought that an attack on Pittsburgh and Wheeling was imminent and it was recommended that both cities be put in a state of immediate defense,” Brooks told the crowd.

Within hours, the civic leaders of this city met at the Monongahela House — then the preeminent hotel in the city — where they decided it was “an imperative necessity” that thousands of men were needed to build fortifications all around the city.

Michael Kraus, an American Civil War historian and curator at the Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Hall, says they resolved to close down all businesses in the city to gather the needed manpower:  “That included the railroads and manufacturing,” he said, adding with a smile that “they also made sure that all liquor sales were halted during the shutdown.  You can’t drink and work was their thinking.”

Every available man was put to work, with many of the companies around Pittsburgh contributing their labor forces for the work.  “It was reported to be 111 degrees in the sun and 88 in the shade, so this is tough work that they’re doing,” said Mr. Kraus.  That three-week endeavor resulted in the construction of 37 earthen redoubts — battery sites, powder magazines and small forts — spread over 12 miles across the city, as well as in Allegheny City and Millvale, he said.

What if General Lee had turned his Confederate Army West?  Would he have made Pittsburg?  Would he have won?  What would have been the economic impact on the war effort?  Would it have changed the course of the war?.

War planning means looking at the Branches and Sequels, that examine the various futures.  This is the futurable, that vast spread of possible outcomes, some favorable and some not.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Happy Fourth

For John, BLUF:  John Quincy Adams, before he became President, on the Declaration of Independence.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS ON FREEDOM, INDEPENDENCE AND PEACE

Here is the sub-headline:

On July 4, 1821, then-Secretary of State John Quincy Adams gave the following Independence Day speech.

From War on the Rocks, by WOTR Staff. 4 July 2023.

Here is the lede plus three:

And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?

Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government.  America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.

She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

And it goes on.

I think we, as a nation, would do well to follow what then Secretary of State John Quincy Adams told us.

Regards  —  Cliff

Sports Equality

For John, BLUF:  Men transitioning to women have3 an unfair advantage when competing in women's sports.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Boise State professor drops hard data on the trans sports controversy

Here is the sub-headline:

In a June 22 tweet, Boise State professor Scott Yenor compared the women's track and field world records to the championship times of D3 men and high school boys in 2015.

'There are many, many men who are interested in and better at sports than the best women,' Yenor said in a statement.

From Campus Reform, by Associate Editor John Rigolizzo, 27 June 2023, 4:38 pm ET.

Here is the lede plus one:

Boise State political science professor Scott Yenor recently added some hard facts to the debate over biological men competing in women’s sports.

In a June 22 tweet, Yenor compared the women's track and field world records in several events to the championship times of Division III college athletes and state high school championships for men and boys in Louisiana and California. The data showed that college and even some high school athletes are superior to women in track and field.

“How do men and women compare in apples to apples sports comparisons?” Yenor wrote. “Compare women's world record holders to the winners of NCAA Div 3 or high school boys champs in a random year. Answer: men competing in women's sports will crowd out the girls.”

Yenor’s tweet included a table from his book The Recovery of Family Life, comparing the women’s world records in track and field with the NCAA men’s Division III and Louisiana and California boys high school state championships in 2015.

In the 100-meter sprint, the women’s world record was 10.49 seconds; the NCAA men’s Division III championship time was just 10.24 seconds, and the California high school championship time was 10.34 seconds. The Louisiana state championship time was a step behind at 10.91.

I accept thaat there are thoze who wish to change how they present to the world. gender wise.  I have accepted it since Ms Christine Jorgensen travelled to Europe to change from a man to a woman.  On the other hand, I am not impressed by those who go part way in their surgery and hormone treatment.

I believe this should be a non-issue in high school, since I believe that transitioning is a decision for a lifetiem and should not be entered into before one has sufficiently matured.  I put it in the same category as voting, drinking and purchasing a firearm.  Transitioning is a non-reversable decision.  It should not be entered into before one is ready to make a mature decision.

That said, if people transition they should be allowed to compete among themselves in various sports events.  However. they should not disrupt the fair competition among females. an issue that has been an issue for decades, including with Title IX provisions of the Education Amendments of 1972.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

A Free and Frolicking Press

For John, BLUF:  The Press has played an active role in our politics since before the Revolution.&This article suggests that freedom could be certailed.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Keeping Speech Robust and Free

Here is the sub-headline:

The case of New York Times v. Sullivan set a vital standard in libel law. Could the clash between Fox News and Dominion Voting Systems dismantle it—and at what cost?

From The New York Review of Books, by Jeffrey Toobin, 20 July 2023.

Here is the lede plus two:

The libel lawsuit filed in March 2021 by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News, over the network’s coverage of claims that the company had rigged the 2020 election, was settled this spring, but the case may soon become an artifact of a vanished era. In pretrial skirmishing, the two sides agreed on this much: the law of libel is governed by the Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan. In the last legal arguments before the jury was to be seated, Rodney A. Smolla, one of the lawyers for Dominion, called Sullivan “the landmark decision that is the genesis for all of our modern First Amendment principles involving defamation law.” Erin E. Murphy, a lawyer for Fox, likewise said that the principle governing the case “starts in Sullivan.” But the emboldened conservative majority on the Supreme Court, having dispatched Roe v. Wade to the dustbin of overruled precedents, may now target Sullivan for the same treatment. Such a change would have fundamental consequences for both those who speak and those who are spoken about.

It’s a fitting time, then, to take a fresh look at Sullivan—how it came about and what it means today. In Actual Malice: Civil Rights and Freedom of the Press in New York Times v. Sullivan, Samantha Barbas, a professor at the University of Buffalo School of Law, tells the improbable story of the advertisement that gave rise to the case and the decision that Justice William J. Brennan ultimately wrote. It’s a tale that has been told before—notably in books by Anthony Lewis and Aimee Edmondson—but Barbas has a distinctive and relevant argument.

Like the earlier authors, Barbas makes the reasonable claim that Sullivan represented a straightforward battle between good and evil. It was, she writes, “one of a string of libel lawsuits brought by Southern segregationist officials against Northern media outlets…to prevent them from reporting on the civil rights movement.” By ruling for the Times, the Supreme Court “freed the press to cover the civil rights movement” and, not incidentally, likely saved the newspaper from being bankrupted by the damages it would have been ordered to pay in this and similar libel cases. But Barbas’s endorsement of the Sullivan decision is more nuanced than those of Lewis and Edmondson, and more reflective of the current moment. She appreciates the need for libel lawsuits at a time when “damaging falsehoods can spread online with a click, and reputations [can be] destroyed instantly.” But she recognizes that the protections of Sullivan are needed as much, or more, by individuals as by media companies. The story of Sullivan, and of the precedent’s possible demise, reveals as much about our own times as it does the 1960s.

This article was good for bringing me up to speed on Sullivan, which I learned was about an advertisement in The New York Times, and about the fight to end Jim Crow in the South.

I see the Author's point that the US Supreme Court could reconsider Sullivan  The Court could divide over the issue, and perhaps along the lines described, with Justices Thomas and Gorsuch voting to overturn and make libel suits against media outlets easier.  The author thought they might be joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett, as well as Chief Justice John Roberts.

However, I think a reversal of Sullivan would be a disaster.  I worry that it could result in us knowing less about our politics and our world.  The Author is totally dismissive of the allegations against Dominion over election fraud.  I, on the other hand, thought that was an issue worthy of some investigation, along with the exclusion of poll watchers in Philadelphia and Atlanta (as seen on TV).

I hope we don't see a reversal of Sullivan.

Regards  —  Cliff

Howie Nails It

For John, BLUF:  Commenting on the Administration's response (and the responses from Democrats in Congress) to a number of Supreme Court rulings this last week.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

"The Democrats haven't been this mad since the Republicans took away their slaves in the 1860s"

From The Howie Carr Show, by Host Howie Carr, 30 June 2023.

A good summation of the situation in That City.

Regards  —  Cliff