Benster and D Pick Your Games-----The Worst Football Decision I Have Ever Seen Edition

 Oh, you know I have words for what went down with the college football powers that be last weekend. That decision was like seeing Michael Jordan airball a layup on purpose. 

Looks like Mike took it personally, too.

Meanwhile, the Packers are very much in contention after taking out the Chiefs last week. Though it was nice of Taylor Swift to show up at Lambeau to hang out with my Aunt Coco, who was a happy shareholder as the Packers gave her a great birthday present. 

Most people in the know prefer Coco to Taylor (or maybe Koko Taylor), but I'm guessing ol' Taylor will shake it off. Or something like that.

I am feeling the HYYYYYYYYYPPPPEEEE! and ready to pick some games. Watch me work.

Minnesota Vikings (-3) vs. Las Vegas Raiders The Vikings are still in playoff contention and will get a huge lift this week as the Griddy Man has been cleared to return. The thing is, Josh Dobbs has struggled and will get the start again, which has some locals questioning the move. The good news is that the Raiders are a team that is led by morons. Josh McDaniels may have been fired, but Al Davis would have fired everyone about 10 times over if he was still alive. The Vikings should win, but this is the type of game that the Vikings fans love to make uncomfortable. Vikings 24, Raiders 17.

I for one am glad Jefferson is back, because it will certainly help my fantasy football team. The Vikings really needed the bye to reset things. They should be able to beat a highly questionable Raiders team, but as the young fella says, it's going to be uncomfortable, especially if Maxx Crosby gets a head of steam going Vikings pull ahead late to make it look more impressive than it will be. Vikings 28, Raiders 16.

Glorious Green Bay Packers (-6) vs. New York Football Giants Last week was a fantastic performance by everyone. I have been very critical of this team this year, but it's hard to argue with the results. Jordan Love has been great, Matt LaFleur was on fire calling plays last week, the Packers made defensive plays when they had to, and it was the best performance I have seen this year. I'm also really glad that the Chiefs didn't blame the refs, which is a stupid argument to make. Lest we forget, the bad calls went both ways. The Giants are a mess this year, which surprises me. This won't be easy, but the Packers should win given that they are getting healthier. Packers 35, Giants 10.

No Aaron Jones? No Jaire Alexander? No problem! It's been an amazing if weird stretch of games for the Pack, who have really improved as the season goes on. The young receiving corps is growing in front of our eyes and this is the time of year where A.J. Dillon pays off. Giants can rush the passer and they do have offensive talent, but Tommy DeVito is not an NFL quarterback long term. I think this one goes well eventually. Packers 28, Giants 20.

And now, it's time for me to blow a gasket and yell about Florida State getting screwed last weekend. Before I unleash, a quick disclaimer. I am not blaming the Alabama players, coaches, or Nick Saban for being happy or defending their inclusion. They are just doing what they had to do, and the ire belongs somewhere else.

Where is that?

Oh, I'll tell you. What the playoff committee did on Sunday when they explained their reasoning was an utter disgrace and super disrespectful to Florida State. I don't care about how "bad" they looked, they won every single one of their games! That's freaking hard to do. I watched the back end of the ACC title game last week, and what really impressed me about Florida State each time I've seen them this year was that they are a complete football team. This wasn't Jordan Travis and a bunch of scrubs. Their defense played incredibly against a good Louisville team, and they were ranked 4th coming into last weekend. What happened to not dropping a team that didn't lose?

ESPN happened, I think.

What really was disgraceful was what the committee chair said about the Jordan Travis injury. Florida State is a great team with a great defense, and they rallied around their backup quarterbacks to win. Jordan, I know that you probably will never read this or see this, but you have nothing to apologize for about getting injured. It wasn't your fault and I hope that you come back stronger and better than ever for whatever your next challenge is going to be. I'm rooting for you. The other 21 starters, Mike Norvell, and his coaching staff were told that their success was down to one guy, which is a really mean and cruel thing to say. I bet the chairmen wouldn't say that to their faces. You don't win with just one guy in college football. 

Unless the one guy is head of the committee.

In regards to the SEC, nonsense like this is why I have been warning about peddling the narrative that they and ESPN try and sell you. The SEC this year was down. They had a losing record against the ACC in the nonconference, and to be frank the Pac 12 and the Big Ten were just as strong if not stronger than the SEC this year. Despite all of the talking points by Greg Sankey and the ESPN talking heads, their top brands were all shaky. Georgia struggled at times, Alabama needed Auburn to forget how to defend a Hail Mary, South Florida to not do anything offensively, Jimbo to get outcoached, and Ole Miss to melt down in the second half just to stay in playoff contention. Heck, the marquee OOC SEC game involved Alabama getting cooked by Texas at Bryant Freaking Denny. I'm also going to point out despite the SEC having a bunch of success on the field, their leadership is still 10 million dollars short in terms of revenue distribution to their member schools, and that gap will only grow as the Big Ten gets to go to the media rights well before the SEC does, even though the SEC added both Texas and Oklahoma to their conference. I'd love to ask Sankey why that revenue gap exists despite the SEC having better results, but professional SEC cheerleaders like Paul Finebaum and Clay Travis don't want to risk upsetting their beloved conference. Like it or not, money matters in college sports and the Big Ten is winning that race. 

The results on the field would suggest otherwise, but in the long term you're likely to be correct.

So what would I have done? Simple. I would have had the playoff be Washington, Florida State, Michigan, and Texas. What I would have sold is that these are the four teams who won it on the field, and any criticism about leaving out Alabama would have relied on the head to head. In the future with the 12 team playoff, the committee should be former coaches and players, who would be given clear guidelines for seeding and bids. Results on the field are the only thing that matters, and that their job is to simply seed the teams and pick the at larges. I would get rid of them doing rankings, instead having a bracket preview similar to college basketball coming out a week before Thanksgiving. Is this proposed system perfect? Of course not. No system is. But what we saw last week was a load of well, bullshit, and should never be allowed to happen again. 

I would like that, too. 

Enjoy your football this weekend. Ben out. 

This won't end well, part three

 Ann Althouse asks a great question:

They want a gracious concession — after the counting and litigation — but they never mention how ungracious the Democrats were when Trump won in 2016. Did they ever concede that Trump won and stand back and acknowledge that he legitimately held the power of the presidency? 

We all know the answer to that question. A few observations and a suggested to-do list:

• The Democrats are almost certainly going to get by with everything they've done for the last four years. Trump has never, not for even one day, had complete control of the executive branch. He still doesn't. John Durham is Godot, to name one example.
• Still, sunlight is the best disinfectant and at this point the best sunlight will leave a scorched earth. If I were Trump, I would continue to exhaust all my legal options until there are none left. 
• He needs to tell the world everything his team has found. It will be ignored or ridiculed, but it needs to be part of the public record. AOC has called for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, so let's begin the process now. Name names and expose the fraud for what it is.
• Following that, Trump should dump the entire investigative pile from Durham and everyone else on the country. Every move that Strzok and Page and Comey and the rest of the cabal made needs to be put out there. There will be no prosecutions now, so they might as well release all the evidence against everyone who was involved. I don't give a good god damn about "national security" or "sources and methods" -- that was always code for ass covering. The MSM will ignore it, of course, but people need to know precisely what happened. And the information needs to be part of the historical record. If Barr and Durham won't cooperate, Trump should can their well-padded asses. Trump owes them nothing. And more importantly, by doing so it will complicate Biden's efforts to get the band back together. I've read multiple reports that Sally Yates is in line to run DOJ. Blow her up. Same with the corrupt cabal of McGenerals -- everything they've done should be catalogued and exposed to the world.
• While he's at it, Trump needs to fire FBI director Christopher Wray and CIA chief Gina Haspel, who have been stonewalling him for the last four years. Trump can put Rick Grenell in charge of either agency for the last two months and he can make things happen. Biden will have to put new people in position anyway, but make Biden have to get his people past Cocaine Mitch first.
• Trump needs to pardon Michael Flynn post-haste. And then Flynn needs to tell his tale. Again, no one in the MSM will cover it, but the tale needs to be told.
• In addition, Trump should ensure that Hunter Biden is indicted for his crimes. He can make his father issue a pardon. And if Trump has anything on Biden himself, dump that. People need to know that Biden is more than a set of chattering teeth -- he's a set of chattering teeth with the stench of a half-century of corruption and self-dealing. 
• Bottom line -- Trump can count on Biden and the rest of the Dems to go after him with everything they have once he leaves office, so he might as well rub their noses in it for as long as he can. The Dems are not going to show Trump any quarter, so he might as well use the power he retains to make their sins known to the widest possible audience.

Night of the Hunter

 It's a dog bites man story, but it still needs to be told:

Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company, according to emails obtained by The Post.

The never-before-revealed meeting is mentioned in a message of appreciation that Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board of Burisma, allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015, about a year after Hunter joined the Burisma board at a reported salary of up to $50,000 a month.

“Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email reads.

An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf.

Someone tried to give the laptop with this data a bath:

The blockbuster correspondence — which flies in the face of Joe Biden’s claim that he’s “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings” — is contained in a massive trove of data recovered from a laptop computer.

The computer was dropped off at a repair shop in Biden’s home state of Delaware in April 2019, according to the store’s owner.

Other material extracted from the computer includes a raunchy, 12-minute video that appears to show Hunter, who’s admitted struggling with addiction problems, smoking crack while engaged in a sex act with an unidentified woman, as well as numerous other sexually explicit images.

The customer who brought in the water-damaged MacBook Pro for repair never paid for the service or retrieved it or a hard drive on which its contents were stored, according to the shop owner, who said he tried repeatedly to contact the client.

The client didn't apparently want it. Wonder why?

The shop owner couldn’t positively identify the customer as Hunter Biden, but said the laptop bore a sticker from the Beau Biden Foundation, named after Hunter’s late brother and former Delaware attorney general.

That would seem to be of interest. But there's more:

Photos of a Delaware federal subpoena given to The Post show that both the computer and hard drive were seized by the FBI in December, after the shop’s owner says he alerted the feds to their existence.

Chris Wray and his gang may not have an interest, but others did:

But before turning over the gear, the shop owner says, he made a copy of the hard drive and later gave it to former Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s lawyer, Robert Costello.

I'd wondered what Rudy had been up to. There' more:

Steve Bannon, former adviser to President Trump, told The Post about the existence of the hard drive in late September and Giuliani provided The Post with a copy of it on Sunday.

But why did it matter?

Less than eight months after Pozharskyi thanked Hunter Biden for the introduction to his dad, the then-vice president admittedly pressured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk into getting rid of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin by threatening to withhold a $1 billion US loan guarantee during a December 2015 trip to Kiev.

“I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,” Biden infamously bragged to the Council on Foreign Relations in 2018.

“Well, son of a bitch. He got fired.”

He sure did. But if you'll recall, President Trump was the one who was impeached over dealings in Ukraine. We don't talk much about that impeachment much any more. Wonder why....

Love Lies Bleeding

Since the official start of the COVID-19 pandemic, I have been to one funeral. The person who died was Mrs. D's cousin, who died of advanced Alzheimer's at the remarkably young age of 55. She did not have COVID-19.

The funeral was small and surreal; maybe 20 people at most. Everyone had to wear a mask and outward displays of affection were not in evidence -- no hugs for the survivors, muffled conversations throughout. The minister who presided noted that this was the first funeral she had done in months.

At least there was a funeral. Many people who have died in the last six months have not had a funeral at all, or much support as they approached the end of their lives.

It wasn't that way for John Lewis, the civil rights leader turned congressman who died last month. Lewis was an important figure in our recent history and no one disputes that he deserved the honors he received, but still, it rankled. Writing for the Spectator USA, Amber Athey noticed:

Funerals are important: they acknowledge the sanctity of life and allow friends and family to come together to grieve their loss. This reality doesn’t change based on how famous or revered an individual was to the general public: it doesn’t hurt any less to say goodbye to someone who was just a dad or just someone’s child or just a dear friend. Their lives aren’t any less significant. Yet politicians have decided that celebrity affords them the right to override the onerous restrictions on funerals that so many average Americans have been forced to accept.

Yes, Georgia is unique in that it allows anyone to have a funeral. However, the governor’s executive order prohibits gatherings of more than 50 people if social distancing cannot be maintained. Photos of Lewis’s funeral in Atlanta showed that many more than 50 people attended and that social distancing was not maintained in parts of the church, nor during the burial outside.

Emphasis in original. Beyond that, other rules don't seem to apply:

At the same. time, a significant number of attendees traveled from out of state to attend the funeral. 50 members of Congress, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, attended. Mayor Muriel Bowser issued a mandatory two-week quarantine for anyone who travels to Washington, DC from a coronavirus ‘hotspot’. Georgia was one of the states designated as a ‘hotspot’ on a list released by the DC government on Monday. Nevertheless, Pelosi (an essential worker) flitted around the Capitol all day Friday, almost gloating about her freedom from the rules. 

This is a dangerous game. People are noticing. Back to Athey:

How could any person who has lost a loved one during the pandemic see this blatant hypocrisy and not be incensed? You had to decide which family member could enter the hospital and be the last to see their father alive. You had to have last rites read over the phone. You could not touch the casket before it’s lowered into the ground. You could not embrace each other as the dirt was shoveled. All the while, the same politicians who lectured you about making sacrifices to stop the spread traveled with impunity, attended large funerals without proper social distancing and avoided quarantines upon their return.

We are told, incessantly, that this crisis will not end unless people mask up and get with the program. We are sitting on a powder keg. Many of us have reasons to grieve, but those reasons don't seem to matter unless you are a politician with the proper credentials, or some other A-lister or grandee. Meanwhile, the march of restrictions rolls on. You and I have to wear masks. It would seem masks are not necessary where the air is rarefied. Know your place and breathe deeply.

That would be a shame

Sean Spicier laments:

Faith matters

Remarkably scandal free, they'll have you know.

This Is Not America

At the moment, it is. Behold the efforts of local law enforcement in Brighton, Colorado:

While I share skepticism about the overall utility of social distancing, I have made a point of doing so; other than daily walks around the neighborhood and getting a morning cup of coffee at the gas station a few blocks away (which is more about keeping them in business than anything else), I have not been leaving my house much at all. But there are people who cheering this sort of behavior right now -- I see it on my social media feed every damned day.

When we begin the reckoning of this moment, we are going to need to demand answers about behavior like this. But more importantly, we need to consult a mirror to see why we were willing to use the Constitution as we would use a 48-roll jumbo pack of Kirkland toilet paper.

Don't fall in love, fall in line

So Joe Biden, fugitive from Madame Tussauds, is now back to being the frontrunner in the 2020 Dem circus. Is there a deeper meaning to Sooooooooper Tuesday (borrowing a little Benster HYYYYPE here)? Not really. Whatever the party apparat wants, it ultimately gets. And Bernie Sanders isn't what they want.

I was able to get exclusive video of the discussions before Super Tuesday among top Dem officials:

And just as William Holden portrayed it, Joe gets to empty the ashtrays.

It's Klo-ver

Our Amy gets the pipe:

Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar ended her campaign for president Monday afternoon and endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden, as the party’s moderate wing has started to unite in a bid to stop Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders from building an insurmountable lead in the race for the Democratic nomination.

Klobuchar made the announcement official at a Biden rally in Dallas, where former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg also made a separate endorsement of the former vice president at a restaurant before the event. Former presidential contender Beto O’Rourke also was expected to announce his backing of Biden.

Don't fall in love, fall in line

I almost feel sorry for Klobuchar. She didn't even get the chance to take a victory lap in her home state before they came for her, and you know they did come for her. This was not a free will decision, any more than the decision Pete Buttigieg made the day before. And her reward for the past year of her life, for visiting every county in Iowa and all the other silly rituals she chose to undertake, is to endorse a malaprop factory who seems to be about one heckler away from a total mental breakdown.

Still, she had to know this day was coming. She wasn't going to get the nomination. She probably won't even get the Veep nod from Vice President Kinnock; about the best she can hope for, in the highly unlikely event Biden were somehow to win the nomination and then the presidency, would be something like HUD director. When 2024 rolls around, she'll be yesterday's news. Perhaps it's appropriate she knelt before Zod in Texas; at least she won't have far to go to check into her berth in the Cindy Sheehan ditch.

Showtime?

It's on:

Winter may be coming but it's already Springtime for Lawyers in Washington, D.C.  The list of people lawyering up these days would probably fill this page and lap over onto the next. It's just been announced that the John Durham investigation into the provenance of the Russia probe has turned into a criminal investigation. 

Subpoenas and grand juries are coming, real ones, not the Star Chamber counterfeits being orchestrated by the panicked Democrats and their junior league Southern California Torquemada.

The whole point of the phony impeachment inquiry was to muddy the waters. By getting out ahead of Durham, the Dems and their MSM buddies will now claim the inquiry is partisan revenge and therefore illegitimate. As always, you get more projection out of the Democrats than you see at a 20-screen multiplex theater.

The real question -- will Durham really do what he needs to do? Or will he bury it, like all the other scandals before? I would like to believe, but speaking of projection -- we've seen this movie before.

Rules are for suckers

The invaluable Sean Davis, writing for the Federalist, looks at how the whistle began blowing:

On Monday, the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) admitted that it did alter its forms and policies governing whistleblower complaints, and that it did so in response to the anti-Trump complaint filed on Aug. 12, 2019. The Federalist first reported the sudden changes last Friday. While many in the media falsely claimed the ICIG’s stunning admission debunked The Federalist’s report, the admission from the ICIG completely affirmed the reporting on the secretive change to whistleblower rules following the filing of an anti-Trump complaint in August.

The ICIG also disclosed for the first time that the anti-Trump complainant filed his complaint using the previously authorized form, the guidance for which explicitly stated the ICIG’s previous requirement for firsthand evidence for credible complaints. The Federalist reported last week that it was not known which form, if any, the complainant used, as the complaint that was declassified and released to the public last week was written as a letter to the two chairmen of the congressional intelligence committees.

So why does the form matter? Back to Davis:

The ICIG’s claim that it would have been incorrect to perceive a requirement for firsthand information is bizarre considering the previous version of the form clearly stated in unambiguous language that firsthand evidence was required in order for “urgent concern” whistleblower complaints to be deemed credible. It said, in bold, underlined, all-caps text, “FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED”:

Second-hand news

Because the complaint did not allege wrongdoing against a member of the intelligence community (the president of the United States is an elected constitutional officer, not an employee of a statutory agency), did not allege wrongdoing with regard to an intelligence activity (a phone call between two elected world leaders is basic diplomacy, not the execution of a statutorily required intelligence activity), and relied primarily on hearsay rather than firsthand evidence, both the director of national intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel determined that the anti-Trump complaint was not an “urgent concern” under the law and was therefore not required to be transmitted to the relevant congressional committees. In spite of those determinations, the ICIG on its own and after revising its internal guidance and policies regarding firsthand evidence decided the complaint did qualify as an “urgent concern” and forwarded the anti-Trump complaint to Congress.

The rules, in other words, are whatever someone with an animus against a sitting president, says they are. For his part, Donald Trump was tweetin' last night and called this thing what it is:

He's right, you know

I was NeverTrump once. Some of my friends who remain bloggers are still highly critical of Trump for his boorishness. I'm sorry, but aesthetics don't matter at this point. Trump's political enemies cannot succeed. If they do, we don't have a country. It's possible, even probable, they already have. You can't have unelected, unaccountable people changing forms and changing lives. The bureaucracy serves at our pleasure, but they have every reason to believe they rule. And why wouldn't they?

In case you'd forgotten

Whistleblowers are in the news these days. But as always, some whistleblowers are more valuable than others:

Since Barack Obama entered the White House in 2009, his government has waged a war against whistleblowers and official leakers. On his watch, there have been eight prosecutions under the 1917 Espionage Act – more than double those under all previous presidents combined.

And yet other apparent leaks have gone entirely unpunished or have been treated, as in the case of General David Petraeus, as misdemeanors. As Abbe Lowell, lawyer for one of the Espionage Act eight, Stephen Kim, has argued in a letter to the Department of Justice, low-level officials who lack the political connections to fight back have had the book thrown at them, while high-level figures have been allowed to leak with “virtual impunity”.

More, much more, at the link, including a reminder of how John Brennan rolled. And it's the Guardian, so you can't call it a right-wing source.

The Sanctimony Bulk Pack

James Comey is a tall man and his self-regard towers over even his expansive height. Jonathan Turley reminds us of a few things:

The inspector general has confirmed what was clear and obvious. The memos were FBI material, and Comey did violate provisions of the Federal Records Act and FBI rules clearly barring their removal and disclosure. Moreover, the inspector general agreed that it was not necessary to guarantee an investigation into Trump. Investigations were ongoing and the report cites other “options” that Comey refused to use. The report concludes, “What was not permitted was the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.”

The reason Comey violated these rules was as obvious then as it is now. Leaking the memos was designed to improve his stature in the media and it worked. Comey transformed himself into a badly needed hero to use against the villain Trump. He knew the memos would change the focus of media coverage to his new role as a federal government whistleblower.

No one owes James Comey an apology.

The old-fashioned way

Some people decry Ilhan Omar because of her anti-Semitism. That's not what could bring her down, though. Simple, old-fashioned graft just might:

An independent government watchdog says Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar's campaign may have committed serious campaign finance fraud.

Omar's campaign spent $21,547 on travel for the E Street Group, run by Tim Mynett, whose wife is now accusing him of leaving her for Omar. Tom Anderson, who is with the conservative National Legal and Policy Center, said the travel payment may actually be Omar using campaign funds for personal use, according to the Daily Caller News Foundation.

"We believe Representative Ilhan Omar may have touched the third rail of campaign finance law: disbursing campaign funds for personal use," Anderson said. "It's a brazen act Representative Omar was caught doing before in Minnesota and all of the evidence we've seen tells us she’s probably doing it again."

Omar has operated under the assumption that the Esme Murphys of the world will cover for her. If the "probably" turns into "is," she'll have to leave. There are dozens of the DFL politicos who would love to have her seat in Congress. We're watching this one.

The headline we all expected

We also would have accepted "Arkancide"

As inevitable as the dawn:

Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced millionaire who was facing federal sex trafficking charges, died by suicide early Saturday in his Lower Manhattan prison cell, three law enforcement officials told ABC News.

Epstein hanged himself, law enforcement sources said. He was transported in cardiac arrest at 6:39 a.m. from Metropolitan Correctional Center to New York Downtown Hospital, according to sources.

We got a sneak preview of some of Epstein's clientele yesterday:

On Friday, a federal appellate court in New York unsealed around 2,000 pages of documents from a now-settled civil defamation case between Virginia Roberts Giuffre, an alleged Epstein victim, and British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, a longtime Epstein associate.

Giuffre accused Maxwell of recruiting her while she was working as a locker-room attendant at Mar-A-Lago in 2000 and bringing her to Epstein's home for a massage. She claims that she eventually became a teen sex slave to Epstein, and a victim of sex trafficking, beginning at age 17, at the hands of both Epstein and Maxwell.

The newly-unsealed documents showed that Giuffre alleged that Epstein and Maxwell directed her to have sex with, among others: Prince Andrew; criminal defense attorney Alan Dershowitz; former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson; former Senator George Mitchell; a well-known prime minster, who she wouldn't name; and a foreign man who was introduced to her as a "prince."

Dershowitz has denied everything, in forceful terms. Mitchell and Richardson deny the allegations in the linked article from ABC. It's likely coincidental that Richardson and Mitchell's political party isn't mentioned in the article, because why would that matter, right?

The rumors that have long simmered, and that matter most of all, concern Bill Clinton, famous for his horndoggery and credibly accused of untoward behavior by many other women.

It will be interesting to see if the prosecutors decide to redouble their efforts against Maxwell in order to get the story out. Had Epstein been Scott Walker, it all would just mysteriously leak out to the press. But he wasn't, so the story may end here. We'll see.

Games Prosecutors Play

Andrew McCarthy explains what Mueller's Little Helpers were up to:

The special counsel’s staff wrote a 448-page tome, overflowing with details about a traitorous collusion plot that never happened and the obstruction of an investigation that was never actually impeded in the slightest. Even though the regulations call for a confidential report from the special counsel to the attorney general, the Mueller report was patently written with the intention that it would be transmitted to Congress and the public. (Indeed, even before the report was submitted to the Justice Department, various industrious publishers planned to make it available for sale.) Moreover, when AG Barr undertook to announce only the special counsel’s bottom-line conclusions, Mueller’s staff threw a fit, grousing to the media that Barr was wrongly withholding the report and denying the public the condemnatory narrative in which they had couched these benign conclusions.

It's been done before. Remember what happened to Scott Walker in Wisconsin? After the corrupt John Doe investigation was scuppered, the rogue prosecutors found a way to get their theories into the press, leaking to the British newspaper The Guardian, a media outlet last seen informing the world about Danielle Stella, the Ilhan Omar opponent from Bizarro World central casting. A summation of the Wisconsin prosecutor's tactics:

Prosecutors treated conservative organizations as if they were dangerous drug cartels or mob operations. As the Wisconsin Supreme Court said, they executed search warrants against the personal homes and families of the leaders of these nonprofits in “pre-dawn, armed, paramilitary-style raids in which bright floodlights were used to illuminate the targets’ homes.”

Here is the meritless theory behind the investigations: Any support for issues important to Gov. Scott Walker, such as the bill reducing union power over state government employees, was illegal “coordination.”

As the state Supreme Court said, however, our democracy is supposed to assure the “unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.” Instead, the prosecutors’ theories “would assure that such political speech will be investigated with paramilitary-style home invasions conducted in the pre-dawn hours and then prosecuted and punished.”

Also known as the Roger Stone treatment.

You don't have to like Donald Trump, or Scott Walker, or any Republican. You can certainly argue they are scoundrels; Trump certainly has had his scoundrel-like moments. But if we give prosecutors unfettered power, we are risking something far more dangerous than impolite Tweets.

Franken Agonistes

Al Franken wants his old job back:

At his house, Franken said he understood that, in such an atmosphere, the public might not be eager to hear his grievances. Holding his head in his hands, he said, “I don’t think people who have been sexually assaulted, and those kinds of things, want to hear from people who have been #MeToo’d that they’re victims.” Yet, he added, being on the losing side of the #MeToo movement, which he fervently supports, has led him to spend time thinking about such matters as due process, proportionality of punishment, and the consequences of Internet-fuelled outrage. He told me that his therapist had likened his experience to “what happens when primates are shunned and humiliated by the rest of the other primates.” Their reaction, Franken said, with a mirthless laugh, “is ‘I’m going to die alone in the jungle.’ ”

And now, a musical interlude:

Regrets, he has a few, which Franken shared with Jane Mayer, last seen going after Brett Kavanaugh for things Kavanaugh hadn't done, but now in commiseration mode with a politician who actually did things:

When I asked him if he truly regretted his decision to resign, he said, “Oh, yeah. Absolutely.” He wishes that he had appeared before a Senate Ethics Committee hearing, as he had requested, allowing him to marshal facts that countered the narrative aired in the press. 

The piece I've linked, in the New Yorker, is very long and full of attempts at exculpation. Does Franken deserve a second chance? Was what happened to Franken fair?

Well, Franken's not going to get to represent Minnesota in the Senate again, unless Tina Smith were to stand down. Do you see that happening? I don't. Do you think Franken is going to primary Smith, the former Planned Parenthood executive? Do you think the DFL would let him? I don't. If Amy Klobuchar were to retire after her term is up (she's not going to be president, you know), Franken could run for that seat, but he'll have to wait until 2024 to have a chance. Franken will be 73 years old at that time, and there's little reason to believe Klobuchar would give up her seat in any event, unless she runs for president again. If that were to happen, there's a gaggle of younger DFL politicians a mile long who would want her seat and would not be amenable to standing aside to let Franken assuage his psyche.

If Franken really wants to avenge his situation, there's another solution: move back to New York and challenge Kirsten Gillibrand. Of course, he'd have to wait until 2024 for that chance, too. But if he's got anyone to blame for his fate, assuming he doesn't look in the mirror, Gillibrand is the culprit. Back to Mayer:

Minutes after Politico posted the story, Senator Gillibrand’s chief of staff called Franken’s to say that Gillibrand was going to demand his resignation. Franken was stung by Gillibrand’s failure to call him personally. They had been friends and squash partners. In a later call, Gillibrand’s chief of staff offered to have Gillibrand speak with Franken, but by that time Franken was frantically conferring with his staff and his family. Franken’s office proposed that Franken’s daughter speak with Gillibrand instead, but Gillibrand declined.

Gillibrand then went on Facebook and posted her demand that Franken resign: “Enough is enough. The women who have come forward are brave and I believe them. While it’s true that his behavior is not the same as the criminal conduct alleged against Roy Moore, or Harvey Weinstein, or President Trump, it is still unquestionably wrong, and should not be tolerated.”

Minutes later, at a previously scheduled press conference, Gillibrand added insult to injury: she reiterated her call for Franken to resign while also trumpeting her sponsorship of a new bill that banned mandatory arbitration of sexual-harassment claims. She didn’t mention that Franken had originated the legislation—and had given it to Gillibrand to sponsor, out of concern that it might be imperilled by his scandal.

For her part, Gillibrand regrets nothing:

I recently asked Gillibrand why she felt that Franken had to go. She said, “We had eight credible allegations, and they had been corroborated, in real time, by the press corps.” She acknowledged that she hadn’t spoken to any accusers, to assess their credibility, but said, “I had been a leader in this space of sexual harassment and assault, and it was weighing on me.” Franken was “entitled to whichever process he wants,” she said. “But he wasn’t entitled to me carrying his water, and defending him with my silence.” She acknowledged that the accusations against Franken “were different” from the kind of rape or molestation charges made against many other #MeToo targets. “But the women who came forward felt it was sexual harassment,” she said. “So it was.”

So Franken got knifed by an ambitious pol who pretended to be his friend. Should we be sympathetic to his plight? You can if you'd like. But as far as I'm concerned, if I'm going to feel sympathy for a former Minnesota senator, I'll pick Norm Coleman instead.

Epstein's Mothership

Jeffrey Epstein is in the dock again. The Trump haters are hoping Trump is implicated. The Clinton haters figure he's finally going to get his. Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz. . . all manner of big shots are implicated, or they aren't.

The stories have been going around for a long time. Epstein, a wealthy financier, apparently had a long career of procuring and violating teenage girls. He had a private plane and a private island. The plane was called the "Lolita Express." He was in the dock in 2008, but he got a plea bargain orchestrated by the man who is now Labor Secretary, Alexander Acosta.

How will it play out? A few guesses:

• Trump is implicated because he apparently flew on Epstein's plane one time. Bill Clinton flew on Epstein's plane 26 times. Flying on the plane doesn't prove either man diddled a teenager. While it's safe to assume both men will have their names dragged through the mud, it's unlikely they will be in the dock themselves.
• However, if the Trump haters think they can bring Trump down on this one, they won't hesitate to do so, and if it means Bubba goes under the bus (or the landing gear, so to speak), they won't hesitate there, either. The Clintons are no longer useful.
• Acosta may be in deep water, too. Paul Mirengoff at Powerline has been beating that drum for a long time. Acosta's departure wouldn't be a big loss, especially if Trump goes bold and puts Scott Walker in the seat. That confirmation hearing would be a whole lot of fun.

Man of the Moment

You really should read the transcript of Attorney General William Barr's interview with Jan Crawford of CBS News. I'm going to point out two examples of why Barr is exactly the guy we need at this moment:

Honey badger

JAN CRAWFORD: You're saying that spying occurred. There's not anything necessarily wrong with that.

WILLIAM BARR: Right.

JAN CRAWFORD: As long as there's a reason for it.

WILLIAM BARR: Whether it's adequately predicated. And look, I think if we -- we are worried about foreign influence in the campaign? We should be because the heart of our system is the peaceful transfer of power through elections and what gives the government legitimacy is that process. And if foreign elements can come in and affect it, that's bad for the republic. But by the same token, it's just as, it's just as dangerous to the continuation of self-government and our republican system, republic that we not allow government power, law enforcement or intelligence power, to play a role in politics, to intrude into politics, and affect elections.

JAN CRAWFORD: So it's just as dangerous- So when we talk about foreign interference versus say a government abuse of power, which is more troubling?

WILLIAM BARR: Well they're both, they're both troubling.

JAN CRAWFORD: Equally?

WILLIAM BARR: In my mind, they are, sure. I mean, republics have fallen because of Praetorian Guard mentality where government officials get very arrogant, they identify the national interest with their own political preferences and they feel that anyone who has a different opinion, you know, is somehow an enemy of the state. And you know, there is that tendency that they know better and that, you know, they're there to protect as guardians of the people. That can easily translate into essentially supervening the will of the majority and getting your own way as a government official.

JAN CRAWFORD: And you are concerned that that may have happened in 2016?

WILLIAM BARR: Well, I just think it has to be carefully look at because the use of foreign intelligence capabilities and counterintelligence capabilities against an American political campaign to me is unprecedented and it's a serious red line that's been crossed.

Emphasis mine. Partisanship is one thing, but Barr points out the real danger, which is the certainty of thought that flows from Orange Man Bad. As I've observed the last 3-4 years, the greatest realization I've had to face is discovering that many of the things I believe weren't, ahem, adequately predicated.

The end of the interview is even more important:

JAN CRAWFORD: But when you came into this job, you were kind of, it's like the US Attorney in Connecticut, I mean, you had a good reputation on the right and on the left. You were a man with a good reputation. You are not someone who is, you know, accused of protecting the president, enabling the president, lying to Congress. Did you expect that coming in? And what is your response to it? How do you? What's your response to that?

WILLIAM BARR: Well in a way I did expect it.

JAN CRAWFORD: You did?

WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, because I realize we live in a crazy hyper-partisan period of time and I knew that it would only be a matter of time if I was behaving responsibly and calling them as I see them, that I would be attacked because nowadays people don't care about the merits and the substance. They only care about who it helps, who benefits, whether my side benefits or the other side benefits, everything is gauged by politics. And as I say, that's antithetical to the way the department runs and any attorney general in this period is going to end up losing a lot of political capital and I realize that and that is one of the reasons that I ultimately was persuaded that I should take it on because I think at my stage in life it really doesn't make any difference.

JAN CRAWFORD: You are at the end of your career, or?

WILLIAM BARR: I am at the end of my career. I've you know--

JAN CRAWFORD: Does it, I mean, it's the reputation that you have worked your whole life on though?

WILLIAM BARR: Yeah, but everyone dies and I am not, you know, I don't believe in the Homeric idea that you know, immortality comes by, you know, having odes sung about you over the centuries, you know?

Emphasis mine. This is a man who doesn't care if he gets dissed in the Washington Post, or doesn't get to hang at the cocktail parties in Georgetown. He understands there is no value in holding the esteem of jackals. He may look like a cross between John Goodman and Roger Ebert, but he is Shane. This is the man of the moment.

UPDATE: if you weren't certain that Barr is the guy we need, consider this: swamp denizen Jonathan Chait is terrified.

This seems significant

Judicial Watch strikes again:

Judicial Watch announced today that a senior FBI official admitted, in writing and under oath, that the agency found Clinton email records in the Obama White House, specifically, the Executive Office of the President. The FBI also admitted nearly 49,000 Clinton server emails were reviewed as result of a search warrant for her material on the laptop of Anthony Weiner.

E.W. (Bill) Priestap, assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division, made the disclosure to Judicial Watch as part of court-ordered discovery into the Clinton email issue.

There's more:

Priestap was asked by Judicial Watch to identify representatives of Hillary Clinton, her former staff, and government agencies from which “email repositories were obtained.” Priestap responded with the following non-exhaustive list: 

Bryan Pagliano
Cheryl Mills
Executive Office of the President [Emphasis added]
Heather Samuelson
Jacob Sullivan
Justin Cooper
United States Department of State
United States Secret Service
Williams & Connolly LLP 

Priestap also testifies that 48,982 emails were reviewed as a result of a warrant for Clinton email account information from the laptop of Anthony Weiner, who had been married to top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

All the screaming about impeachment, especially now, is a distraction. Watch the show.

Prove you're innocent, Bad Orange Man!

So the Mueller Report (sounds like a failed Robert Ludlum novel) is out. And for all the hyperventilating about it, the most astonishing thing to me is that now, in 2019 America, you have to prove you're innocent. It has almost always been the case that if a prosecutor cannot find grounds to indict, they say so. Robert Mueller didn't indict, but he left the matter open. That's outrageous. Instead, he left a report filled with a bunch of nuggets so that others could continue to torment his quarry.

We've seen this before, actually. The corrupt Democrats in Wisconsin did the same thing to Scott Walker. The "John Doe" investigations of his campaign were thrown out by state and federal judges, but we got to read all of the prosecution's theories anyway. It was a disgrace. So is what happened to Donald Trump.

Bonus: see if you can spot the irony in the article I linked.