Very Deep Throat: Bidengate and Wray stonewalling
“For some reason, the FBI thinks they’re immune to oversight.”
That’s because there have been no consequences for them for all their wrongdoing; the DOJ and the DC courts protect them.
Here’s Representative Comer speaking about Wray’s defiance of Congress and the need to hold him in contempt:
Who is the whistleblower? I don’t know, but see this:
…[I]n response to Wray’s failure to comply with the subpoena, Grassley, who had previously noted the FD-1023 form was five or six pages long, indicated that the confidential human source (CHS) was “an apparent trusted FBI source.” This is huge because Grassley wouldn’t make that claim unless the whistleblower had. That means the source is not some random guy walking in off the street, but rather an existing “trusted” CHS, which is why the FBI used the FD-1023 form.
In response to Wray’s stonewalling, Comer likewise revealed some significant details, clarifying late last week that the CHS reporting document was dated June 30, 2020, and referenced “the amount of money the foreign national allegedly paid to receive the desired policy outcome” as “five million.” These details could only have come from a whistleblower with deep knowledge of the investigation, meaning the whistleblower’s characterization of the CHS as “trusted” carries more weight. Likewise, the whistleblower’s claim that the FD-1023 “includes a precise description of how the alleged criminal scheme was employed as well as its purpose,” is more credible given the whistleblower’s knowledge of other details.
The whistleblower letter came to the FBI in June 30, 2020. That was after it was clear that Biden would be the Democrats’ nominee for president.
Trump, DeSantis, and COVID (plus the entry of Christie and Pence)
I’ve been observing Trump closely since the summer of 2015, and I think I can safely say I know most of his methods of operating when he’s campaigning. He has long attacked all opponents in his own party when he thinks it makes tactical sense, and his attacks are often personal. Some are even preposterous – remember his insinuation that Ted Cruz’s father was somehow involved in the JFK assassination?
But there was often method to what seemed like madness, and most of the nicknames he gave people – actually, all of them that I can recall – were pretty spot on in terms of locating and targeting their soft underbellies. He seems to have lost that knack, as I’ve described with his nicknames for DeSantis and now McEnany (who is not even an opponent of his, but his extremely bold and competent former press secretary for whom the moniker “milktoast” [sic] is absurdly inappropriate).
Which brings me to ruminating on why on earth Trump would attack DeSantis’ COVID record, when all it does is invite comparisons to Trump’s own COVID record, which is one of his soft underbellies. And in addition, Trump compared DeSantis’ COVID record unfavorably to that of New York’s Cuomo. But as Powerline’s Steven Hayward points out, the metrics demonstrate DeSantis’ superiority.
I’m not a mind-reader, but I submit the following as possible logical or at least somewhat-logical motives for Trump’s accusations:
(1) He knows his own vulnerability on the COVID score, so this is a pre-emptive strike at DeSantis to try to start a counter-narrative, at least among Trump’s own supporters. No matter that it’s incorrect. It reassures them and gives them talking points in arguments against those on the right who have deserted him.
(2) He’s sucking up to Cuomo for some reason. I’ve actually read speculation – probably tongue-in-cheek – that he’ll choose Cuomo as a running mate. But I think that’s absolutely not happening.
(3) Trump believes all attention is good attention, and this brings him attention.
(4) Trump is ambivalent about becoming president again, although he might not be aware of this, and is doing some things to self-sabotage.
Of course, there are plenty of illogical reasons Trump might be making these sorts of statements. But thinking of illogical reasons for them is easy. I’m interested in possible logical ones.
Speaking of which – why are Chris Christie and Mike Pence throwing their hats into the 2024 GOP candidate ring? I suppose they may have their eyes set on a VP spot, but I doubt it – especially for Pence. The simple explanation is ego, and you can hardly go wrong with that one for politicians. Another is that they may be bored, and it’s fun and exciting to become a candidate. Still another is that they’re in it as spoilers to deflect votes from someone else, but it seems to be that that would only help Trump (whose core supporters are very loyal) and hurt DeSantis. Since Pence and Christie don’t seem fond of Trump, I can’t see that as their motive.
We are now officially a low-trust society
Exhibit A – the Walgreens of the future:
Walgreens, which has closed about 750 stores in the last few years, just debuted a theft-resistant format in a redesigned store in downtown Chicago. As CWBChicago reports, it has a lot more staff than a regular store, where customers (and thieves) help themselves to merchandise off the shelves.
In what was once a typical Walgreens, there are now just two short aisles of so-called “essentials,” where “customers may shop for themselves.” If you want anything else — a bottle of booze, a deodorant brand deemed “non-essential” — you’ll need to order it at a kiosk and pick it up at the counter.
So many things are ordered online these days and mailed that perhaps this newer type of in-store shopping won’t seem so strange to most people. It certainly seems both strange and depressing to me, although I’ve already noticed pharmacies in California where nearly everything is locked down. That’s not the case where I live, but I wonder how long it will be before I start seeing the signs.
Although this is only tangentially related, the mall near me is a sad and nearly-deserted place. I was at the Macy’s there the other day, and I saw only one or two other customers in the entire store. I happen to like to browse as well as to try things on, but that may be a pleasure that will be phased out soon. And yet, a week or two earlier I had some business at a different mall about an hour away, in an area that’s similar demographically and only a little more populous, and the mall there was absolutely bustling.
That really surprised me. The stores there are not very different from the stores in the mall nearer to me, although there are a few more of them, and a couple of slightly nicer ones. Otherwise it’s the same. So why the enormous disparity in consumer traffic? I’m not sure, but I think that once a mall starts spiraling down there’s a negative feedback look in which more and more stores start leaving and then it becomes a kind of spooky place where no one wants to shop.
Open thread 6/1/23
Overheard in my favorite restaurant
I was recently in a very blue city, having dinner in a restaurant. There were two couples at a table near me who had fairly loud voices – not obnoxiously so, but loud enough to easily hear because the restaurant was a “cozy” one.
One woman was recounting some health problem she had had while traveling in Germany, and how well she’d been treated there. Then she asked one of the men, who apparently was considered some sort of expert on the subject, “What first-world country has the worst healthcare?”
Sounded like a set-up to me, and I was not surprised when, without a moment’s hesitation or explanation he answered, “The US.”
It was all I could do to keep from springing up, walking the step or two to their table, and asking a few questions, such as, “Then why do so many Canadians who have the money come here for healthcare? And why do I know people with injuries and chronic pain in Canada and the UK who have to wait a year for an MRI? What’s your metric for ‘best’ and ‘worst’?”
I didn’t do it. But I ground my teeth for a while afterwards. It’s the sort of kneejerk US-bashing I hear constantly, and everyone nods as though it’s so obvious that it’s true that there’s no need to even discuss it further.
(Delicious meal, though.)
Trump goes after Kayleigh McEnany
I don’t know about you, but I thought that Trump’s press secretary Kayleigh McEnany was one of the best people in the Trump adminstration. Calm, whip-smart, articulate, mega-prepared, and attractive, she always had an answer and usually a very very good one.
Well, here’s another example of my point that something has gone wrong with Trump ever since around October of 2020:
On Tuesday evening, former President Donald Trump took to his social media platform Truth Social and launched an assault on his former press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany. He leveled accusations against her, claiming that she distorted poll figures during her appearance on Fox News.
““Kayleigh ‘Milktoast’ [sic] McEnany just gave out the wrong poll numbers on Fox News. I am 34 points up on DeSanctimonious, not 25 up. While 25 is great, it’s not 34. She knew the number was corrected upwards by the group that did the poll,” Trump wrote.“The RINOS & Globalists can have her. FoxNews should only use REAL Stars!!!”
Trump meant “milquetoast,” but it’s not his spelling that concerns me. It’s the weird inappropriateness of that particular moniker to describe the bold McEnany, not to mention turning on someone who was one of his biggest and most loyal champions. If she was a few points off on a poll – and I’m going to assume that she was – big deal. She can be corrected without a personal attack and an absurd nickname.
Another result of this kind of behavior on Trump’s part is that if by some miracle he were to be re-elected, I can’t imagine it would make a lot of people especially eager to serve under him. First of all, there’s the risk of prosecution, something that happened to quite a few of his previous associates. And then, at the first opportunity, these stupid attacks. And I submit that this is a particularly stupid attack on Trump’s part.
ADDENDUM: As to what I think motivates Trump to do this, I think he cannot get past what happened in 2020, plus the threat of so many prosecutions that hangs over him. He exhibits bravado about the latter, but it has to be stressful. Plus, he has always reacted strongly to anything he sees as a narcissistic wound and has always held to the principle that the best defense is a good offense. In the past, however, his instincts were better about this although hardly perfect. He’s getting older and I think he must be at least a little weary. In addition, I think something about his COVID illness experience or the treatment he got for it in October of 2020 (including a course of steroids) somehow may have affected him negatively as well, because I noticed a decline in his judgment shortly after that.
ADDENDUM II: It’s very interesting to read the comments at Instapundit on this topic, particularly the attempts to defend Trump versus the ones criticizing him.
Does the right get the word out effectively?
Commenter “stan” writes:
What has the GOP done to enable it to get its message out so that the MSM monopoly is neutralized?
This is the issue. The GOP and conservatives have whined about the unfairness of the news media since Friendly and CBS knifed Goldwater in a particularly despicable way. That’s nearly 60 years.
Perhaps the strongest argument for Trump is that he is capable of getting out his message to his supporters better than anyone else. And he has the courage and the stomach to call out the dishonesty of the MSM and take on all the arrows with a smile.
DeSantis would be well-advised to demonstrate that he can get his message to GOP voters without it being misdirected and slandered by the MSM.
Good question. And yet I see the right doing things all the time to get the word out, some of it involving the MSM and some of it in an effort to bypass it. They hold press conferences and put out press releases, they are on Twitter and other social media, they do public speaking, they have websites, they send out newsletters (I get some of those), and they go on TV shows and podcasts that are willing to have them – which turns out to be mostly ones on the right.
I also have been getting lots of stuff from DeSantis for quite some time: emails and also mailings. I think the mailings are mass mailings because I’m not on any special list, as far as I know, and friends of mine have gotten them too.
The main reason Trump has high visibility is that the MSM has always covered him heavily. Sometimes it’s because they think he’s being offensive, and that highlighting some statement or other of his will make moderates dislike him even more, which will hurt his chances. But sometimes – particularly in primary season – the MSM highlights him because they think it will enhance his standing with GOP voters and they want him to be nominated because they think he’ll lose in the general (this bargain backfired mightily in 2016, of course). Trump also has long been a celebrity and a TV personality even before he became a candidate in 2015, and he’s an entertaining and idiosyncratic guy. That cuts both ways – some people love him for it and some hate him for it.
Lastly, one thing DeSantis has done consistently and repeatedly is to call out the MSM. I’ve seen this from him almost as long as he’s been governor. Just do a search for something like “Desantis refuses to talk to mainstream media” and you’ll get a host of articles on the subject.
It is indeed a huge handicap when virtually the entire MSM is against you; not something to be minimized. And not everyone is a colorful character like Trump. I see many efforts to cut through the problem and go past it, but I think it’s a very difficult thing to do. It remains to be seen what will happen when the primary season really gets going.
Open thread 5/31/23
I took quite a few art history courses in college, and the painter Georges Braque was not a favorite of mine. I especially resented the fact that for years, his work and Picasso’s were almost identical, causing frustration for me during our exams when we were shown slides of paintings to distinguish and identify. But much later, when I saw some works of his in a museum – the ones painted after WWI when he was no longer joined at the hip to Picasso – I was stunned by how calming and beautiful they were when seen in person. The colors were especially harmonious and subtle.
Evidence of Joe Biden’s knowledge of and involvement with Hunter’s schemes
Don’t sit on a hot stove until you see any accountability for this sort of thing:
On their face, the messages seem to contradict public statements from President Biden on the foreign influence-peddling that used to fund Hunter’s drug-infused, self-destructive …
…Joe Biden repeatedly claimed as a presidential candidate and as president that he had no knowledge of any foreign dealings of his son.
Those denials now appear patently false…
Hunter’s abandoned laptop includes pictures and appointments of Hunter’s foreign business associates with Joe Biden…
As Biden associates pushed the Times to change aspects of the [2018] story [about Hunter’s dealings], Joe Biden called to report on the results.
In his message, [Joe] Biden ends his call to Hunter with the statement, “I think you’re clear.”
The new messages indicate that the Bidens were worried that Hunter was in a free fall as these dealings were becoming known and revenue was declining.
Jim Biden appears to be rushing to get Hunter to work on the problem with the family.
He assures him that they can find him “a safe harbor” and that “I can work with you[r] father alone!”
…Jim pushed him to remain in contact and in the fold: “I cannot find you, believe it or not, I have been looking. I [have] driven by Hallie’s, you fathers. Called texted you.?… I want to help all the deals are still alive.”…
Joe and Jim Biden were propping up a man who was barely able to function.
However, Hunter was still the conduit for alleged millions in foreign money…
Back in 2018, [Jim Biden] assured his nephew that “as usual just need several months of [your father’s] help for this to work.
“Let’s talk about it. It makes perfect sense to me.”
In the meantime, the message from Uncle Jim likely remains: “Stay calm and carry on.”
And so they all have.
The debt limit deal…
…has yet to be approved by Congress. And people are all over the map about whether the deal itself is a good thing or a bad one. To me, it’s at least semi-good in the sense that it’s not an obvious fiasco on the scale of past negotiations by the GOP. And it was done with a Congress where the GOP has only a thin margin in the House and none at all in the Senate, not to mention a Democrat president.
This piece says Joe lost.
This one says the deal is so-so.
And this one says McCarthy lost.
Take your pick.
Birx: we deceived you in order to get you to comply
Well, at least she admitted it:
Remember how "two weeks to flatten the curve" turned into months of lockdowns?
This was by design.
It was never about "flattening the curve."
This was a lie.
In her memoir, Deborah Birx, the architect of the "flatten the curve" strategy, admits this openly: pic.twitter.com/kjV0lhoELF
— Kevin Bass PhD MS (@kevinnbass) May 29, 2023
Birx’s book came out a year ago April, but I missed its details at the time. This writer reviewed it shortly after and continues the same quote:
At the same time, we needed the measures to be effective at slowing the spread, which meant matching as closely as possible what Italy had done—a tall order. We were playing a game of chess in which the success of each move was predicated on the one before it…
At this point, I wasn’t about to use the words lockdown or shutdown. If I had uttered either of those in early March, after being at the White House only one week, the political, nonmedical members of the task force would have dismissed me as too alarmist, too doom-and-gloom, too reliant on feelings and not facts. They would have campaigned to lock me down and shut me up.
That made it necessary to deceive those stupidheads.
Fifteen Days to Slow the Spread was a start, but I knew it would be just that. I didn’t have the numbers in front of me yet to make the case for extending it longer, but I had two weeks to get them. However hard it had been to get the fifteen-day shutdown approved, getting another one would be more difficult by many orders of magnitude. In the meantime, I waited for the blowback, for someone from the economic team to call me to the principal’s office or confront me at a task force meeting. None of this happened.
What arrogance from people like Birx whose job it is to advise on the science, not to deceive officials and the public in order to close down a society because Birx et al happen to think it would be a good idea. The horrendous results of that decision as weighed against a small or probably nonexistent benefit are now obvious.
Birx’s previous experience was with HIV/AIDS (see this), and she makes a preposterous, non-evidence-based comparison of condoms to prevent HIV transmission to masks to prevent COVID transmission. This is a scientist?
And back when the country as a whole was no longer being locked down but states varied greatly in their own lockdown policies, Birx was still hard at her work of deception:
After the heavily edited documents were returned to me, I’d reinsert what they had objected to, but place it in those different locations. I’d also reorder and restructure the bullet points so the most salient—the points the administration objected to most—no longer fell at the start of the bullet points. I shared these strategies with the three members of the data team also writing these reports. Our Saturday and Sunday report-writing routine soon became: write, submit, revise, hide, resubmit…
Fortunately, this strategic sleight-of-hand worked. That they never seemed to catch this subterfuge left me to conclude that, either they read the finished reports too quickly or they neglected to do the word search that would have revealed the language to which they objected. In slipping these changes past the gatekeepers and continuing to inform the governors of the need for the big-three mitigations—masks, sentinel testing, and limits on indoor social gatherings—I felt confident I was giving the states permission to escalate public health mitigation with the fall and winter coming.
The author of the article comments:
Most of the book consists of her explaining how she headed a kind of shadow White House dedicated to keeping the country in some form of lockdown for as long as possible. In her telling, she was the center of everything, the only person truly correct about all things, given cover by the VP and assisted by a handful of co-conspirators…
It’s very clear that Birx had almost no contact with any serious scientist who disputed the draconian response, not even John Iaonnidis who explained as early as March 17, 2020, that this approach was madness. But she didn’t care: she was convinced that she was in the right, or, at least, was acting on behalf of people and interests who would keep her safe from persecution or prosecution.
I cannot imagine Birx ever changing her opinion.