Kash Patel knows what it feels like to be spied on by the FBI

The New Neo Posted on by

This is what I’m referring to:

As chief counsel, Patel had no idea [between 2017 and 2018] that the subject of his investigation — the FBI — was collecting his data and increasing the visibility of witnesses he was communicating with, including whistleblowers.

At the time, Patel was demanding to see FBI documents and depose FBI witnesses to find out if the bureau had abused its power in obtaining a FISA warrant to spy on Trump aide Carter Page.

But Patel remained in the dark until 2022, when Google finally was cleared to send him a copy of the subpoena. Outraged, he told me at the time: “The FBI and DOJ subpoenaed my personal records while I caught them doing this to Page back in 2017.”

He said the McCabe FBI didn’t want anybody to find out that it “literally copied and pasted” Democrat opposition research, wholesale, into wiretap-warrant applications.

He added that he hoped those behind the abuses would be prosecuted by a future Trump administration: “They must be held accountable or they’ll only abuse their power again.”

The IG probe reveals that the FBI had renewed the subpoenas each year, snooping on congressional staffers for up to five years. That means McCabe’s successor, Christopher Wray, signed off on the continued collections.

Some would call it revenge. But I think it more rightly should be called justice, and perhaps even poetic justice, that Patel is poised to become FBI director.

The FBI has been out of control for a long time regarding Trump and the right. The people who have been participating have long believed there will be no serious negative consequences for them, and so far they have been correct. Perhaps that’s about to end.

About Pelosi’s hip fracture

The New Neo Posted on by

First of all, a disclaimer: I make no predictions about Pelosi’s recovery from a hip fracture she sustained in a fall the other day. But anything is possible.

I read these musings:

Statistically, when a woman in her mid-80s breaks her hip, the consequences are cataclysmic. Up to 33% of older adults with hip fractures die within a year. 50% are unable to bathe, feed, wipe their butts, or dress themselves.

About one in five end up in a long-term care facility.

During the first three months after a hip fracture, older adults have a five to eight times higher risk of dying. And this elevated mortality rate lasts nearly a decade.

An untreated hip fracture is even worse. 70% of victims are dead within a year.

It’s not a trivial thing.

Often, it’s not that the broken hip itself is so medically dangerous, but it’s an overall indicator of physical frailty: if your grip-strength, stamina, balance, and bone density have all severely deteriorated, you’re more likely to fall and break your hip. It could be more correlation than causation.

All that may be true, but I don’t see it as having much relevance to Pelosi’s situation. A great many people who fracture their hips are already in bad shape, and it’s not my impression that that’s the case for her. The article actually points this out.

But what I’m thinking about is my own mother. She fell and fractured her hip (or did she fracture her hip and then fall?; sometimes it’s that way around) at the age of 96, and that was a couple of years after having a stroke. She was pretty darn frail at the time, although she could still walk with a walker.

At 96 her prognosis was awful. The hospital hesitated to even operate, which would have left her in terrible shape. They did a bunch of tests on her cardiovascular system and pronounced her strong enough to at least withstand the surgery, and so some sort of hip replacement was performed.

She bounced back. It was uncanny. There was a 65-year-old woman with a similar injury sharing a room with her who had a lot more post-op pain and a slower recovery. And it’s not that my mother was so cooperative with rehab; she was not. She just recovered quickly and no one knew why.

I remember being stopped in the hallway of the hospital by one of her doctors, who said in a between-you-and-me way: “You know, your mother is a very strong woman.”

My answer was, “I guess she is, but I never knew it before.”

My mother lived to be 98, and during those two years, up until the final month or two, she was walking around as before with her walker. The broken hip didn’t seem to have much effect on her.

That’s just one person. And of course, she did die two years later. But considering the age she was when she broke her hip, that amount of survival was a pretty good deal.

The Biden administration is trying to thwart Trump on its way out

The New Neo Posted on by

No surprise, really.

First we have the border wall materials that are being auctioned off. This not only hurts Trump, but it hurts all taxpayers, because it means to build the wall he’ll have to buy new materials at a higher price:

The Biden administration is using its final weeks to haul a massive amount of border wall materials away from the southern border to be sold off in a government auction, an apparent effort to hinder President-elect Donald Trump’s effort to secure the border, The Daily Wire has learned.

Videos obtained exclusively by The Daily Wire from a U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agent show unused sections of the wall being hauled away on the back of flatbed trucks from a section of the border just south of Tucson, a hotspot for illegal crossings during the Biden administration. The agent estimates that up to half a mile per day of unused border wall is being moved.

“They are taking it from three stations: Nogales, Tucson, and Three Points,” the border patrol agent, who was granted anonymity to speak freely, told The Daily Wire. “The goal is to move all of it off the border before Christmas.”

Secondly we have the continuation of the prosecution of some of the remaining J6 defendants, and the re-definition of the meaning of a pardon by Merrick Garland’s DOJ, which now says acceptance of a pardon is an admission of guilt:

“[A] pardon at some unspecified date in the future … would not unring the bell of conviction,” federal prosecutors argued in a Jan. 6 case before U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols. “In fact, quite the opposite. The defendant would first have to accept the pardon, which necessitates a confession of guilt.”

The pronouncement is the latest attempt by the Justice Department to salvage the legacy of its Jan. 6 investigation, which leaders say is the most sweeping criminal probe in American history. Trump has pledged to unravel that probe with the stroke of his pen by granting clemency to many of the nearly 1,600 people who have been charged for their roles in the attack on the Capitol four years ago.

The legal significance of presidential pardons, and whether they imply guilt, has been debated in courts for decades. The Supreme Court has opined that pardons often carry an “imputation of guilt” even if the consequences for that guilt are erased. And the Justice Department has previously concluded that even if pardons eliminate criminal consequences, those convicted of crimes can still face punishment in other forums, like professional ethics boards.

“A pardon … does not erase the conviction as a historical fact or justify the fiction that the pardoned individual did not engage in criminal conduct,” the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel wrote in a 2006 opinion.

Do you see the difference? It is true that some of the J6 defendants pled guilty (often under threat of much greater sentences if they don’t, of course). And no, pardons don’t erase that in the legal sense. But pardons do not come with the necessity for “an admission of guilt” by those pardoned. The do imply guilt, or they can imply guilt, and they don’t legally wipe away the confiction, but that’s a far cry from a confession of guilt through the acceptance of a pardon.

And here’s the ramping up part:

Activity in the J6 investigation accelerated the month before the election. At least 16 individuals were arrested; home security camera footage obtained by RCI shows the heavily-armed pre-dawn FBI raid of a subject in California on October 17.

Shortly after the election, DOJ officials instructed attorneys working on J6 cases to carry on regardless of the pending change in leadership. “[Federal] prosecutors in the Justice Department’s Capitol Siege Section received guidance this week about how to proceed in pending Jan. 6 cases … including a directive to oppose any Jan. 6 defendant’s requests for delays,” Ryan J. Reilly of NBC News reported on Nov. 9. “Prosecutors are instructed to argue that there is a societal interest in the quick administration of justice and these cases should be handled in the normal order.”

Here’s one of these recent cases (emphasis mine):

On December 6, Lamberth not only sentenced Grillo to 12 months in federal prison but took the unusual move of remanding him into immediate custody; judges usually allow a defendant to report two to three months following sentencing. Lamberth’s decision appeared to make sure Grillo spent some time in jail before a presidential pardon spared him.

In a 13-page sentencing document explaining his reasons for imposing such a harsh move, Lamberth again criticized what he believes are attempts to “minimize the events of January 6.” Lamberth then erroneously claimed five police officers died as a result of the protest. “One can only wonder what further horrors might have transpired if our elected officials had not gotten out in time. No matter what ultimately becomes of the Capital Riots cases already concluded and still pending, the true story of what happened on January 6, 2021 will never change.”

The “true story” does not involve the death of any officers as a result of the protest. And yet the judge appears to think it does.

More on the left’s big slobbering love affair with Luigi Mangione

The New Neo Posted on by

It continues. More thoughts:

(1) The left loves the worst who are full of passionate intensity, as long as that passionate intensity has been aroused by leftist causes.

(2) The left has always had a special jones for young leftists who are violent and deemed attractive, such as Che.

(3) There’s also a contagion effect spread through social media.

(4) The left hates capitalism and especially American capitalism, and doesn’t think health insurance should be a business at all. Therefore, health insurance companies are evil. Brian Thompson was a successful capitalist who was CEO of a health insurance company. Therefore, evil.

(5) The left believes it must use violence because it knows it can’t ordinarily get its way trough the ballot box. Since the left believes that it is virtuous and its causes are just, violence is okay to get its way. They believe fear and intimidation are great tools – and those are the goals of Thompson’s murder.

(6) The left believes that health care is an entitlement, and that no claim should ever be denied. They also believe for the most part that government should be running the provision of health care, although people who believe this ignore the bitter complaints of those in Canada and Great Britain who are regularly denied health care that most people can get here. Perhaps the left believes that stinginess in health care is just fine as long as it’s government being stingy and not private businesses. The left also ignores the huge amount of government control of health care reimbursement that exist today. Obamacare, anyone?

(7) A smaller segment of the right applauds Mangione as well, but for slightly different reasons. I’m not 100% sure of their reasons, but I’ve seen such people on comment boards on the right and I don’t think they’re trolls. Some people on the right also believe health insurance companies and executives make obscene profits at people’s expense. Facts and figures don’t necessarily matter to them any more than they matter to the leftists. It seems visceral to me.

And this is late-night TV’s idea of a funny bit:

Roundup

The New Neo Posted on by

(1) Apparently Luigi Mangione never had any personal dealings with United Healthcare until he decided to murder Brian Thompson. This actually does not surprise me.

(2) Twenty-six FBI assets and informants (“confidential human sources”) attended the festivities on J/6, and some entered the Capitol while others entered the restricted area around the Capitol. This was all done without orders or permission for most of them. We don’t know for sure what they did while there, but the IG says they did not commit violence or urge others to do so, although they broke the same laws as the people charged with trespass and – surprise, surprise – the FBI assets were not charged.

(3) The UN is an Orwellian cesspool. Up is down, down is up, because the UN says so.

(4) Meanwhile, in Syria, meet the new guys on the block:

(5) And about those New Jersey drones:

White House National Security Communications Adviser John Kirby told the media that the drones over New Jersey are not malicious or from a foreign country.

They don’t seem to know what they are, however. At least, they’re not saying.

(6) Democrats, hoist on their own petard.

I think they really believed the right would never come to power again.

Sinema and Manchin strike again

The New Neo Posted on by

Neither Arizona’s Sinema nor West Virginia’s Joe Manchin will be returning to the Senate after the end of this session. But I think insufficient attention has been paid to how instrumental they were in saving us all from some of the worst plans the Democrats had for Biden’s tenure: HR1, statehood for DC, packing the Court, ending the filibuster. For that, the Democrats detested them and both declined to run for office again.

You may be cynical about politics, I may be cynical about politics, but I thank them both, whatever their motives. And the duo wasn’t quite through yet:

Senators Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ) and Joe Manchin (I-WV), both former Democrats who were savaged by their own party for not eliminating the filibuster, left President Joe Biden one final parting gift on Wednesday.

Biden nominated Lauren McFerran to a five-year term on the National Labor Relations Board, which is essentially a federal agency dedicated to protecting big unions, and her confirmation was set to hand Democrats control of the body for the entirety of President-elect Donald Trump’s second term.

But Manchin and Sinema were the only two Democrats who voted against confirming her, and so McFerran won’t be serving in that position.

More here:

Trump and Republicans will now have the ability to confirm two nominees to the board, giving them a one-seat advantage at that time.

The news will have major repercussions for big business and labor unions, as the board has a major say in settling disputes between those two parties.

How did Kamala and the Democrats raise so much money?

The New Neo Posted on by

We may get to find out.

There’s this possible method:

Watchdog group Americans for Public Trust (APT) has filed a campaign finance complaint against outdoor clothing company Patagonia’s tax-exempt arm for allegedly misrepresenting donations.

According to the complaint filed Thursday with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), a collective of climate-focused tax-exempt groups — which altogether hold 98% of Patagonia’s nonvoting shares worth nearly $1.8 billion — misidentified political contributions made to Democrat political action committees in 2022.

Such a misidentification, the complaint alleges, violates the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which prohibits individuals from making contributions in the name of another and prohibits the use of one’s name to be used to make contributions in the name of another. As a result, APT requested the FEC conduct an investigation to determine, and impose appropriate sanctions for, any and all violations.

“With these tremendous resources, and the subsequent desire to pour this money into American politics, there should come great responsibility and transparency,” the complaint states, pointing to the Patagonia collective’s vast assets.

I doubt Patagonia is alone.

And then there’s a potentially bigger violation:

Steil [House Administration Chairman, a Republican from Wisconsin] disclosed earlier this fall that his committee is investigating whether four foreign powers — China, Russia, Venezuela and Iran — used ActBlue to route illicit foreign money into Democrat coffers.

His committee referred thousands of suspicious donations to state attorneys general in five state, prompting an investigation that has now expanded to 19 states.

In addition, a Wisconsin Republican strategist filed a lawsuit in October alleging his email identity was misused to make Democrat and liberal donations he did not authorize or pay for. The judge in the case recently approved a subpoena compelling ActBlue to disclose certain evidence in the case.

I seem to recall that there were accusations that Obama’s campaign had accepted foreign donations online. Looking it up just now, I see this:

The Government Accountability Institute, which is headed by Stanford University Professor Peter Schweizer, used sophisticated Internet investigative tools — including something called “spidering” software — to determine how the web is being used to raise political funds.

What it found should be of concern, since it suggests that many in Congress and, more importantly, the Obama campaign have systematically exploited loopholes in the law to raise millions of dollars overseas — a big chunk of it in the People’s Republic of China.

How is this done? Through the mundane use of what’s called in the credit-card world the Card Verification Value, or CVV. It’s the three-digit number on the back of a card that helps positively identify that the person using the card has it in his or her possession. It’s a key anti-fraud weapon, used by nearly all legitimate e-commerce businesses and charities.

Obama’s campaign doesn’t use it. Mitt Romney’s does. So why the particular concern over Obama?

As the report notes, letting a flood of money into the political system with no verification of its source is an invitation to fraud — especially from overseas.

Much much more at the link.

Ghosting and cutoff – political or otherwise

The New Neo Posted on by

Yesterdays’s thread on the subject of cutoff because of political disagreement had so many interesting comments that I want to take up one of the issues raised.

I think there’s a huge difference between cutting off an acquaintance with whom you’ve already grown apart, and cutting off long-term friends or close family with whom you’ve previously had a good relationship. Cutoff, and even ghosting, might not be a big deal with the first and might even be mutually acceptable – although I wouldn’t recommend that anyone automatically assume it is. Relationships are not always symmetrical.

So if you ghost someone (and for anyone unfamiliar with the expression, it means to cut off communication without any sort of explanation or notice) – even if you think that person welcomes it or doesn’t care, and even if you never hear from the person again, which reinforces your assumption – it just might be that the person is hurt or even deeply hurt, confused, and shocked, and doesn’t know how to convey it to you.

When you ghost someone you simply don’t care – at least, not enough. Or maybe you care, but your main emotion is anger and you want to hurt the person’s feelings. He or she may not even know why you stopped communicating. And it’s far worse to do that to someone with whom you were close, and even worse if you previously had a good relationship except for politics.

I think it’s obvious by now that I’m not a fan of ghosting. Never have been, even before I ever heard the term.

Ghosting is at least somewhat cowardly, IMHO, especially if the person has never harangued you about politics but has merely politely disagreed, or if you don’t talk about politics with the person at all although you know you disagree. And of course politics isn’t the only reason for cutoff, not by a longshot.

I think it’s much better to have the courage to explain, which at least honors the depth of your past friendship or family tie by giving the person that much courtesy and that much respect. No need to act angry, either, and definitely no need to bring any third people into the mix.

I once experienced cutoff from a good friend but at least I knew why because she told me – and the reason wasn’t politics. But it was a misunderstanding I couldn’t seem to clear up although I tried. For five years we didn’t speak, but then slowly, with a series of steps, we became friends again and now (knock wood!) are very close friends again.

In contrast, I once was ghosted by an old and dear friend, and although I wrote her asking to please explain, she didn’t communicate at all for about seven years, until I saw her at a school reunion. I figured this was my chance – I went over and we chatted, and then I asked her point blank what had happened. She gave me a couple of reasons that didn’t make sense to me, but I didn’t argue with her. I knew it wouldn’t work, and I knew our friendship was over. But it was a tremendous relief just to see her and hear what she had to say.

Maybe that’s just me. But I don’t think I’m alone in wanting to know.