Wildflowers:
Russiagate indictments?
One of the worst things about Russiagate is that there’s been no accountability. Those involved are mostly doing quite well, thank you very much.
Another is that the ploy was effective. Please see this:
… 60% of Democratic voters still think “the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to win the 2016 election”, according to the poll of 1,014 Likely Voters conducted on July 6-7.
A whopping 69 percent of liberal voters still cling to the Russia collusion hoax, compared to 27 percent of conservatives, and 45 percent of moderates. Among all voters, more believe it unlikely (49 percent) than likely (42 percent).
I could have saved the pollsters the trouble and told them that – except that I would have estimated the number of Russiagate believers to be even higher. At any rate, that’s why people produce and disseminate propaganda; it often works.
As far as consequences go, however, perhaps there finally will be some for the perps. Perhaps:
Solomon indicated that work has already been done on a scope memo, which would lay out the parameters for a special prosecutor’s authority. “There is an enormous opportunity for those of us who’ve been calling for accountability to see a path to it for the first time,” he said. “A legitimate path. Not smoke, not mirrors. A legitimate path to accountability.”
One of the potential focal points of the case, Solomon said, is the infamous meeting between then-CIA Director John Brennan and President Barack Obama in mid-July 2016. “That’s when Brennan walks into President Obama and says, ‘Hey, we have this intercepted information that Hillary Clinton has authorized a program to make it look like Donald Trump’s a Russian spy,’” Solomon recalled. “President Obama and Brennan knew before the FBI opened up on that information that this was a dirty trick by Hillary Clinton.”
From there, Solomon suggested, the conspiracy spanned multiple events, including the Trump-Russia hoax, the Ukraine impeachment, and even the FBI’s refusal to act on intelligence regarding Chinese interference in the 2020 election. “They didn’t want to help Donald Trump, so they ignored a potential counterintelligence threat,” he said. “It allows for a very large series of events to be wrapped into a single conspiracy.”
I wouldn’t sit on a hot stove until indictments are handed out. Also, even if the perps are convicted with airtight evidence, a very sizable percentage of the population will believe they were railroaded by a vindictive, dangerous, dictatorial, Russian-sponsored Trump.
NOTE: See also this for more details.
Roundup!
(1) Don’t get too excited about the Adam Schiff mortgage fraud case, says Ace.
(2) Alan Dershowitz says there’s no Epstein client list that’s being suppressed:
Alan Dershowitz says it’s *NOT* Trump Admin that’s hiding Epstein info — it’s judges.
“Many of the things that are being suppressed are being suppressed by two judges in Manhattan.”
“The judges have issued orders — which is why I can’t disclose things I’d love to disclose
He added that there is no client list.
“What there is, is a redacted FBI affidavit from accusers. There are several of them. From accusers, that accuse Jeffrey, that accuse various people of having improper sex. And that has been redacted. The names of the people accused have been blacked out.”…
“Pam Bondi and the Justice Department under Donald Trump are not responsible for that. I don’t know of any information that they could disclose that they haven’t disclosed. Now, maybe there is some. I’m simply not aware of it. And so I think it’s important to place the blame where the blame deserves to be placed.
“The vast majority of people who are in the file, and I know them all, I’ve seen all the names. The vast, vast majority of them have already been disclosed. They’re in articles all over the world. They’re in books that have been written.”
And I will add that there is no evidence other than the accusations by the two accusers – one of whom is Virginia Giuffre, who falsely accused Dershowtiz, by the way.
But once people get in their head that there’s a list of guilty clients that’s being suppressed, many will never let go of that notion.
(3) A Trump changer:
LANGONE: "I am sold on Trump … I think he's got a good shot at going down in history as one of our best presidents ever."
CNBC: "That is a real turnaround because you didn't want to vote for him!"
LANGONE: "When you made a mistake, admit it."
??? pic.twitter.com/8UZN5fyMpX
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 15, 2025
(4) Israel bombs Syria to protect the Druze.
(5) Trump sanctions an anti-Israel official at the UN, and several other anti-Israel commissioners resign. Sounds like a good move to me:
All three commissioners leading the United Nations’ anti-Israel inquisition panel resigned this week, just days after the State Department sanctioned a pro-Hamas U.N. investigator.
The U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory’s chairwoman Navi Pillay, commissioner Miloon Kothari, and commissioner Chris Sidoti all announced they are stepping down, according to the watchdog group U.N. Watch.
The exodus comes less than a week after Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced U.S. sanctions against U.N. special rapporteur for the Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese for her “illegitimate and shameful efforts to prompt [International Criminal Court] action against U.S. and Israeli officials, companies, and executives.”
Albanese has basically been a Hamas propaganda mouthpiece for the UN. See this for an example of her activities.
Open thread 7/15/2025
Yes, we got lost. A lot. I certainly did, anyway:
Get ready for the drones
A new generation of ‘Super Drones’ is transforming war and industry, with sizes as small as a mosquito, speeds of up to 300 mph, intelligent ‘swarms’ working together without pilots, hi-tech ‘cloaking’ capabilities and single craft able to both fly and swim, experts told the Daily Mail.
Cutting-edge science is being poured into these highly advanced robots, used on battlefields in Ukraine and the Middle East, but also over farmers’ fields, freeways and electrical grid infrastructure at home.
‘It’s pretty remarkable,’ said Virginia Tech drone expert Tombo Jones.
‘Some of the most eye-opening advancements come from really well-engineered programming and algorithms, where the drone is continuously assessing itself and providing feedback.’
‘There’s a lot of training for AI [artificial intelligence] elements in drones to be more autonomous,’ said Samuel Bendett, an advisor with the Center for Naval Analyses and expert on drones used in the Russia-Ukraine war.
‘All militaries are starting to recognize that the availability of commercial tech that can go into manufacturing a military drone is lowering the threshold for all kinds of actors, state and non-state alike, for the acquisition of a tactical drone force.’
The article doesn’t say, by the way, that the mosquito-sized drones go 300 MPH.
This type of thing is way outside my field of expertise. But the article indicates that battery limitations are an issue, although one that’s being worked on.
I hope we’re developing some sort of defense. At any rate, we seem to be doing something:
In sophisticated swarm technology, hundreds of drones can communicate with each other independently and respond to obstacles while conducting a mission, with minimal input from a single pilot, using the same patterns as swarms of insects.
The Pentagon’s $1billion Replicator program plans to deploy thousands of cheap, autonomous drones working together in swarms by August this year.
The program, launched in 2023, ‘could include autonomous aerial, ground, surface, sub-surface, and/or space systems’ all coordinating, according to a December 2024 congressional report.
SCOTUS okays Trump’s firings in the Department of Education
Another 6-3 win for Trump, along the usual lines. Its significance:
The Supreme Court cleared the way for the Education Department to fire hundreds of employees on Monday, a move that advances President Donald Trump’s plans to dismantle the department. …
The decision temporarily pauses an order by a lower court judge that had reinstated roughly 1,400 employees at the Education Department.
In March, Education Secretary Linda McMahon laid off half of the department’s workforce as part of the Trump administration’s broader reduction in force efforts. Later that month, Trump announced in an executive order that he planned to shutter the department altogether. …
The plaintiffs argued to the high court that the Trump administration’s “record abundantly reveals” that its “true intention is to effectively dismantle the Department without an authorizing statute.”
The Trump administration responded that the layoffs did not prove the department was being shuttered and that the department plans to carry out its legally required functions. Congress would need to approve a full shutdown of the department’s functions.
So the injunction to stop the firings – and the dissent by the three liberal female justices in support of the injunction – is one of those “we know what Trump intends so we will stop him before he does it” decisions. The firings were perfectly legal but the left says they were preliminary to shutting the department down entirely, which Trump has said he plans to do. Of course, he also says he will do it through Congress, which is legal. It’s not been shuttered yet, so the dissent is absurd.
The Department of Education, however, is one of the left’s biggest beneficiaries and one of their most effective propaganda tools. No wonder they would and will do almost anything to keep the money flowing to it.
Disturbing Air India crash report
Any findings would be disturbing because the crash itself was exceptionally disturbing. But the report raises questions of the worst sort. Simply put, either there was a catastrophic glitch (software? hardware?) that turned both engines off at a low altitude from which there would be no time to notice and recover before plummeting to the ground, or one of the pilots deliberately crashed the plane and murdered all aboard plus many on the ground.
Here’s what the preliminary report says:
India’s Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) found that fuel switches had flipped to cutoff position—a move typically done only after landing—just 50 seconds into the flight as the aircraft climbed to 625 feet. The cockpit voice recorder captured one pilot asking the other why he cut off the fuel, with his colleague replying that he hadn’t. The switches flipped a second apart, roughly the time it would take to shift one and then the other manually. …
Both fuel switches were found in the run position with indications that both engines were attempting to relight before the crash. The commanding pilot, Sumeet Sabharwal, 56, had 15,638 hours of experience, while co-pilot Clive Kunder, 32, had 3,403 hours.
I also watched several YouTube videos of pilots discussing the findings, and the lean is to the idea that this was most likely done deliberately, although there’s a lesser possibility that it was some sort of software glitch. The idea that this was a purposeful crime would be simply unbelievable, except that there is precedent. Perhaps a fuller report in the next year will tell us more, but I have a feeling we may never know for sure.
Of the 242 passengers and crew on the airplane, all but one died. In addition, there were 19 fatalities on the ground and 67 injured. RIP.
According to airline pilots and experts, the movement of the fuel control switches—critical switches that allow and cut fuel flow to the plane’s engines—have to be deliberate actions and their accidental movement is next to impossible. The switches have brackets on either side to protect them. Additionally, there is a stop lock mechanism that requires the pilots to lift the switch before moving it from either of its two positions—RUN and CUTOFF—to the other. The report did not mention whether the investigators have so far been able to ascertain if the switches were toggled by one of the pilots or not.
These switches are usually moved only when the aircraft is on ground—to start the engines before departure and to shut them down after landing. Movement of either of the switches during the flight would be required only in the event of the corresponding engine failing or suffering enough damage that would require shutting off fuel supply to it to ensure flight safety. The pilots may also switch off fuel supply and then immediately switch it on if they believe that the affected engine could be restarted safely.
Open thread 7/14/2025
Somewhat disgusting and yet somewhat interesting:
This is one of the most STUNNING videos I’ve ever seen
I’ve long paid a certain amount of attention to fashion, makeup, hairdos, that sort of thing. And so when I noticed a short video on the fact – stop the presses! – that Princess Anne had changed the hairdo she’s sported for over fifty years, I clicked on it. I was expecting maybe a short do, something a bit more modern, but I have to say that I hardly noticed any difference whatsoever, the change was so minor and subtle and underwhelming.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that. In general the Royals adopt a look and stick with it. I don’t think Queen Elizabeth changed her hairdo during her entire reign.
Anyway, here’s the newly-coiffed Anne. The clickbait title given the video is “Princess Anne’s hair change STUNS the internet.” I suppose it depends on what the meaning of “stun” is:
Nazis? Not exactly
Commenter “Mrs Whatsit” has made this thoughtful observation:
I used to wonder how on earth the “good Germans” allowed Hitler to happen. I’m afraid that now I see, as it’s happening around me among many people who sincerely think of themselves as good and yet are blindly, enthusiastically cooperating with evil.
I’ve been reading Douglas Murray’s extraordinary new book, “On Democracies and Death Cults: Israel and the Future of Civilization.” It’s painful to read, but illuminating as to how so many meaning-to-be-good people — including too many of my friends and relatives — have let their prior certainties lead them into this abyss of hatred and upside-down thinking. I’m losing sleep over it.
Yes, but for me the analogy isn’t so much to the Germans and Hitler, but rather to the Orwellian upside-down world of Nineteen Eighty-Four and its inversion of the truth. The details are quite different in both analogies, but the common denominator is how chilling it is to see how easily people can be made to believe lies, and how those lies become entrenched, and how that leads to demonizing the Other – including the widespread idea on the left that it’s the pro-Trump right who are the real Nazis.
Sobering.
After Trump’s 2024 victory, a friend who had stuck with me as a friend through many decades of “agree-to-disagree” politics stopped talking to me and explained that she can no longer talk to people who support Trump. Also after his election, another old friend told me, only slightly jokingly, that if she had a terminal medical diagnosis she would purchase a gun and make plans to assassinate him and consider it well worth it to suffer the consequences.
This latter person is someone I grew up with and have been at least somewhat friendly with all these years, but I probably only speak to her (on the phone; she lives far away) about once a year. I seem to recall that the prior time we mentioned politics – maybe ten years ago? – she was fairly moderate and not enamored of the Democratic Party. Apparently, something about Trump had subsequently pushed her over the brink into raw hatred – although she knew I support him and was perfectly happy to talk to me. During the recent conversation, I asked her what made her hate Trump so very much, and she cited his Charlottesville remarks – which tells you how important propaganda is in shaping such deep antipathy. She seemed to think that the incident proved he was a Nazi, or Nazi sympathizer and enabler. Even though I informed her that his Charlottesville remarks had been twisted and distorted by the press and the left, she wasn’t particularly interested in hearing details or softening her point of view.
But back to the actual history of the actual Nazis. Germany in the 1920s and 1930s had really been through the mill. First there was their huge losses in the First World War plus the Versailles Treaty, and then their economic hardship during the Weimar years. I don’t think our recent history compares. Not only that, but I think it’s important to remember that although the “good Germans” did indeed allow Hitler to happen, they didn’t actually elect him. Yes, there were plenty of Nazis, but not a majority of Germans when he was appointed in the proverbial “backroom deal.”
But perhaps even more importantly, the Nazis imprisoned and/or even murdered a great many of the “good Germans,” as soon as the Nazis got to power, and then used a great many approaches to make it very very difficult and very frightening to oppose them. They consolidated their power very quickly with the Enabling Act (it was passed about seven weeks after Hitler’s ascension), something that has not happened here and hopefully never will.
Until I became especially interested in how the Nazis came to power, I really didn’t know the extreme nature of what they did quite early on in their rule, but I’ve written about it on this blog in the following posts: this one on the passage of the Enabling Act, and this one on the speed and violence of their actions to make sure everyone who might even think of opposing them was terrified, except for the exceptionally courageous.
The book I describe in the latter post – The Nazi Seizure of Power – is especially edifying and I recommend it highly. It describes step by step how it was done, and why resistance was futile. If you read the book, you’ll see that, for example, although our own J6 prosecutions were akin to some of these actions, the crackdown on the J6-ers and on the right in general during the Biden years was far milder than what the Nazis did to their own opponents. The book describes how this was accomplished in the first six months of the Nazi regime:
Very early in the Nazi era an event occurred in Thalburg [the fictitious name of the actual German city that was the subject of the book] which effectively fused propaganda and terror. This was the boycott of the Jews, April 1 to 4, 1933. … [T]his particular action was also a miniature example of what the Nazis intended to do to the entire German population. For the essential effect of the boycott of the Jews was to atomize them socially: to cut them off from the rest of German society so that normal human ties could not work to restrain the dictatorship. …
Thus the position of the Jews in Thalburg was rapidly clarified, certainly by the end of the first half-year of Hitler’s regime. …
Thalburg’s Jews were simply excluded from the community at large. At the same time the Nazis undertook their most Herculean task: the atomization of the community at large. Though the methods differed, the result was the same, and by the summer of 1933 individual Thalburgers were as effectively cut off from effective intercourse with each other as the Jews had been from the rest of the townspeople. …Eventually no independent social groups were to exist. Ultimately all society, in terms of human relationships, would cease to exist, or rather would exist in a new framework whereby each individual related not to his fellow men but only to the state and to the Nazi leader [Hitler] who became the personal embodiment of the state. …
Most of this was accomplished in the first few months of the Nazi era. Clubs were dissolved; others were fused together; others lost their purpose and went into rapid decline. All societies came under Nazi control …
… [By this process] individuals had a choice: solitude or mass relationship via some Nazi organization.
There’s so much else in the book that I can only recommend reading the entire thing, because it gives a highly detailed and comprehensive step-by-step picture of that era. And although there are some similarities – after all, clubs have been on the wane in the US for quite some time – what’s happened here is neither as fast nor as organized and totalitarian in every sense of the word.
For that, we can be thankful that we don’t have the Germanic tendency towards efficiency or obedience. COVID lockdowns showed that we have more of a tendency towards obedience than most of us had previously thought – and yet it was by no means a universal response, and many states regained their freedoms relatively early in the game. Consider it a warning.
The Epstein brouhaha
The Epstein conspiracy theories are tenacious, and most people who hold to them will never give them up. They take three forms, not mutually exclusive. The first is that Epstein was running a ring in which he supplied underage girls to the rich and famous for sex. The second is that there is a list he kept of such compromised clients. And the third is that he was murdered and did not kill himself.
I think all of those ideas are likely to be false – even the first one. Of course, that’s not the same thing as saying I believe there’s no way on earth any of them could be true. It’s possible, but I nevertheless think all three are unlikely. In that, I probably disagree with the majority of people in the blogosphere, especially those on the right. But I’ve done a lot of research into the case and I’ve written many posts about it, and that’s my conclusion.
If you’re interested in some of my reasoning, please see the following previous posts of mine: this, this, this, and this.
The present Epstein-related flap, however, seems to be between Dan Bongino and Pam Bondi, and is about these issues, over which Bongino is said to be contemplating handing in his resignation. For example:
The infighting over the case came to a head during a Wednesday meeting, which included Bongino, Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, the sources said. Bongino and Patel were confronted about whether they were behind a story that said the FBI wanted more information released but was ultimately stymied by the Department of Justice, they said.
Bongino denied leaking that notion to NewsNation, which published the story, a source familiar with the matter told CNN, though he did not sign on to a statement defending the review included in that article.
The following tweet is typical of the sort of reactions I’ve seen among many on the right; the ire seems to focus on Bondi’s unfulfilled promises regarding the Epstein “client list”:
Pam Bondi said the Epstein client list was on her desk to review for release to the public just a few months ago. Now the DOJ she leads claims that there’s no Epstein client list.
Sorry but this is unacceptable.
Was she lying then or is she lying now?
We deserve answers. pic.twitter.com/VcBSLsCLtl
— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) July 7, 2025
What did Bondi actually say about this, back in the early days of the administration? Did she specifically say she had the client list of guilty parties? I think people often tend to hear what they want to hear, and they wanted to hear that. Granted, she was not especially clear in her statements; see this. But at no point did I get any sense that she was saying she had the smoking gun list of guilty parties, although I can understand why other people might think she was saying exactly that.
The thing is, Epstein had plenty of clients and contacts and names and addresses. But he did not have – nor would he even be expected to have had – a list that went something like “here are the people whom I supplied with underage girls for sex.” Why would anyone keep such a list, even if he was engaging in that activity? It makes no sense to me and never made sense to me. And a list of mere clients and contacts drags innocent people through the mud, without proving anything whatsoever about whether they engaged in criminal contact in concert with Epstein.
This is about Bondi’s February 21 Fox interview, the one that I believe has been so misinterpreted and/or misunderstood:
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Friday she is reviewing a list of clients of Jeffrey Epstein, the financier who was charged with sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors.
“It’s sitting on my desk right now to review,” Bondi said during an interview with Fox News anchors John Roberts and Sandra Smith. “That’s been a directive by President Trump.”
Roberts then asked the attorney general whether she’s seen anything that’s led her to say ‘oh my gosh,’ to which Bondi responded, “not yet.”
“It’s sitting on my desk to review” means the in-depth review hasn’t happened yet. And she’s specifically saying that, so far, there are no smoking guns. That’s what the administration ended up saying, too, which many people take as a coverup.
People don’t like that idea. It doesn’t fit with their preconceived notions or their expectations or their assumptions. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. But no, not always.
I discover that I seem to be in basic agreement with this guy.
Also, on February 27, 2025, I wrote this post back when the Epstein files were supposedly released. So now I’m just going to repeat the content of that older post, because I think it contains a lot of relevant information – and so everything from here on is the content of my February 27 post.
I’ve long been curious about the so-called Epstein files. Most people seem to think that the list of names will be a list of perpetrators in the sexual abuse of minors. But I’ve never understood why they believe that, although it’s certainly true that some of those names may be of guilty people. But in terms of criminal evidence, what would the list mean? I’ve never seen a definitive description, perhaps because most people don’t know and are merely imagining.
Epstein was, among other things, a man who liked to sexually abuse underage girls in their teens, as far as I can tell. I don’t think there’s much doubt about that. But did he procure such women for others? And if so, who were those others who were also guilty of the sexual abuse of minors? Epstein also was a very rich man who was a major Democratic donor and had an enormous number of contacts and acquaintances. Those people almost undoubtedly would make up the bulk of those on his contacts list, I’ve always assumed.
Now the list – or some portion of the list – has dropped:
A source who has reviewed the files said the release spans more than 100 pages, including a list of contacts without further context.
The person said the unveiling was likely to be a “disappointment” to sleuths eager for bombshell new evidence about the billionaire pedophile’s connection to prominent political and business leaders.
It’s called “Phase 1.” Will there be a Phase 2? And what will that reveal? More names without context?
Reactions:
The limited scope of the release drew criticism from transparency advocates including Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), who leads a House GOP task force on government transparency. …
“THIS IS NOT WHAT WE OR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ASKED FOR and a complete disappointment. GET US THE INFORMATION WE ASKED FOR!”
Just what is that information? A list of guilty parties? I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the government doesn’t have such a list, there’s only a list of contacts and flight logs and that sort of thing. Guilt by association, which isn’t guilt enough – although the public will infer guilt.
If the authorities do have better evidence than that, the proper way to deal with it is to prosecute.
You might believe that is naive of me and that obviously tons of smoking-gun evidence is being covered up. But I just don’t think so. Of course, I could be wrong. But until I see something that changes my mind, my best guess is that such a list says nothing about guilt and that the government lacks good enough evidence to prosecute. You might ask, what of the videos? As far as I can tell, Epstein made videos of himself having sex with minors. But I”ve never read anything about videos of others having sex with minors, other than speculation that such videos exist.
NOTE: Bondi seems to think the FBI is covering something up. But I think that perhaps Bondi just doesn’t want to look like Geraldo Rivera opening Al Capone’s vaults.
ADDENDUM: In response to some comments in this thread –
I thought I made my point of view quite clear. But perhaps not clear enough. So I’ll try a clarification.
Epstein was a sexual abuser of many underage women. I am not disputing that at all. And I am also NOT saying there couldn’t once have existed evidence that implicated others in some sort of sex ring run by Epstein, one that exploited underage women, with the evidence having been destroyed at some point. In fact, if there was such evidence and especially if it implicated powerful people, it probably would have been destroyed.
However, I think it’s wrong to assume either that there were such other people for whom Epstein was procuring underage women, and/or that strong evidence of their guilt existed, and in particular that anyone on an Epstein contact list was guilty simply by virtue of being on that list.
Regarding Epstein and whether there were other men involved – I understand that many human beings are guilty of very dark doings. I don’t think I’m the least bit naive about that. But I also believe that many such people are quite secretive about their crimes and do not necessarily like to spread the word around, and I think Epstein may have been of the latter variety. There are plenty of other reasons all those people might have associated with him short of engaging in sex with underage girls. He may also have been a voyeur who liked to spy on people with hidden cameras when they were his guests. But again, that doesn’t mean he procured underage girls for them. Just that he himself was guilty of sex crimes.
The evidence that Epstein procured girls for other powerful men rests solely – so far at least, as far as I can tell – on the testimony of a couple of the women years later as part of civil lawsuits they filed for money. I am not a proponent of the idea that women don’t ever lie about such things, especially where there’s notoriety and money involved.
It gets rather complicated, but one of the main people on whom this perception of Epstein shopping young women around for other rich and/or famous men rests is a woman named Virginia Giuffre. You can read about her here and in particular about her accusations against Alan Dershowitz here. Read about her here also. Note that in the latter article she says, “When you are abused, you know your abuser. I might not have my dates right, I might not have my times right… but I know their faces and I know what they’ve done to me.” And yet later, regarding her allegations that she had sex with Dershowitz six times, she said maybe her accusations against him were a case of mistaken identity. Oopsies!
I have come to my own conclusions about her veracity, and you can come to yours.