McCabe walks

The New Neo Posted on by

And it’s not a perp walk, either:

The Justice Department said Friday it will not pursue criminal charges against former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, after a nearly two-year-long investigation into accusations brought by the agency’s independent watchdog who claimed that he lacked “candor” when questioned about leaking to the media.

In a letter to McCabe attorney Michael Bromwich obtained by Fox News, Justice Department attorney J.P. Cooney said the investigation is now “closed.”

“We write to inform you that, after careful consideration, the Government has decided not to pursue criminal charges against your client, Andrew G. McCabe,’” Cooney wrote.

The DOJ added: “Based on the totality of the circumstances and all of the information known to the Government at this time, we consider the matter closed.”

McCabe’s attorneys stated “At long last, justice has been done in this matter.”

Ah, yes. If they didn’t have double standards they’d have no standards at all.

Prosecution on charges such as this is not for Deep Staters to receive, it is for them to give – and to give to Republicans and in particular Trump supporters. It’s really quite clear that the law was designed to get them, and not august Pooh-Bahs such as McCabe, Comey, Hillary Clinton, and the like.

The irony is a bitter one. Not unexpected, however. And perhaps that’s the saddest thing of all: we have come to expect this sort of thing. As Bonchie of Red State puts it:

Right in the middle of a national dust-up over Roger Stone supposedly deserving nine years in prison, news is coming across the wire that former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe will not face charges for blatantly lying to the FBI (something he admitted to and was fired over).

[ADDENDUM: Questions:

How much control does Barr have over a decision like this? What is DOJ protocol? Is the decision made by lower-downs in the department who have worked on the nuts and bolts of the case? Does he just sign off on it? How involved is he?

Will we ever get any kind of explanation – bogus or not – for why the decision was not to prosecute? I think I know why: they are protecting their own, and/or they don’t think they have enough evidence for a conviction. But I’m interested in their answer, and I’m also interested in whether they even think they owe the public any explanation at all. So far I’ve been unable to find one.]

Those early hominids

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s pretty well-established that early humans outside of Africa mated with Neanderthals. For example, through DNA testing, I learned that I have an only slightly less-than-average share of Neanderthal myself.

Now we learn that people of west African heritage have a trace of a different and unknown early hominid:

Using whole-genome data from present-day West Africans, scientists have found a small portion of genetic material that appears to come from this mysterious lineage, which is thought to have split off from the human family tree even before Neanderthals.

Today, it’s thought (although still being debated) that anatomically modern humans originated in Africa, and that once these populations migrated to Europe and Asia, they interbred with closely-related species like Neanderthals and Denosovans.

As such, modern West Africans, like populations in Yoruba and Mende, do not possess genes from either of these ancient species, but that doesn’t mean there was no intermixing. In fact, recent evidence suggests the genetic past of West Africans may contain a similarly juicy narrative.

When I was in school, things were thought to be much simpler. But I did read texts that indicated some anthropologists believed humans had bred with Neanderthals, although it was an unpopular view at the time. It appealed to me, though, and I continued to believe it might be true. Later it turned out that DNA evidence confirmed it.

Tomorrow is Valentine’s Day

The New Neo Posted on by

Do you know where your flowers are?

I’m not a big Valentine’s Day person. For one thing, my drafted boyfriend was inducted into the army on that day in 1968. For another – and over thirty years later – my marriage broke up on that day. The latter was completely coincidental and had nothing whatsoever to do with it being Valentine’s Day.

But still.

And because of migraines I can’t eat chocolate! Ever since Christmas, after which the stores start thinking “February 14th,” I’ve had to walk the supermarket aisles loaded with holiday chocolates. I’m inured to it, though. After thirty years of being unable to eat chocolate without getting an almost instant migraine, I’ve accepted that chocolate is simply not part of the category “food” for me.

Bias: the jury foreman in the Roger Stone case…

The New Neo Posted on by

…was Tomeka Hart, and now it is being reported that earlier she had tweeted many anti-Trump posts, including the strong belief that all Trump followers are racists, and that she seems to have tweeted prior to the trial in ways that indicate she was against Stone as well.

Hart revealed her own identity as foreman in order to write a defense of the four prosecutors who resigned. At some point she scrubbed some of her previous social media posts, but not all:

According to Fox News, Hart posted and shared “anti-Trump, left-wing social media posts.” One post was about the Stone case, in which she retweeted a post that made light of Stone for arguing that he was subjected to excessive force…

A review by Heavy verified that Hart has posted a slew of political, anti-Trump tweets. Although her Facebook posts are gone, her Twitter page is still active, and it contains multiple still-visible political tweets, including anti-Trump tweets and parts of the now deleted Facebook posts, which she had also posted on Twitter. Some of her tweets are shares of articles that read things like, “What’s so extremely, uniquely wrong about Trump’s presidency” and “Leaked documents show Trump aide concealed ties to Putin cronies.”

More at the link.

I’m not at all surprised. And in fact, since just about everyone these days has strong feelings about Trump, pro or con, I’m only surprised that anyone is surprised by this, particularly since he was tried in DC. Wouldn’t almost everyone in a jury pool be anti-Trump?

Another question that immediately comes to mind for me is whether social media postings are considered during the jury selection process. Seems to be to be a no-brainer that they should be. This 2016 article on the subject is of interest:

The emergence of social media has greatly changed the process of juror selection. Now instead of reviewing the information that jurors make available to attorneys in court, jury consultants and attorneys can access piles of additional information on a juror by conducting a simple internet search. This presents a wealth of questions about the privacy to be afforded jurors and to the privacy of the jury process as a whole. Ethically, the American Bar Association model rules say attorneys can conduct “passive” searches of social media profiles and the internet when researching jurors, as long as they do not “friend” the jurors on any social media sites to access additional information or act fraudulently. Although ethically permissible, some courts have started to limit attorneys’ use of social media for the jury selection process.

Have limits been put in place that prohibit attorneys from citing the obviously-biased postings of a person such as Hart? Does it differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, or court to court, or even judge to judge and trial to trial?

I haven’t been able to locate answers to those question so far. And I have another one: if Hart was biased enough to have compromised the trial verdict, what would the remedy be?

Hart has also ran for Congress as a Democrat.

Here’s a partial answer to some of my questions, if true:

It may hinge on whether she answered those questions truthfully.

I predict nothing will come of this. But it’s very very disturbing.

[NOTE: Much more here. It seems the judge in the Stone case was refusing to accept the Stone defense lawyers’ objections to obviously and dramatically biased jurors, as long as they said they could be objective in the Stone case. Astounding. And yet at this point, sadly unsurprising.]

Sanders 2016, Sanders 2020

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s true that in 2016 Sanders got 60% of the New Hampshire primary vote to Hillary’s 38%. It’s also true that it was basically a dead heat in Iowa in 2016 for the two candidates.

How to compare to the 2020 results? After all, in 2016 Sanders was virtually the only seemingly-viable alternative to Hillary. So he got the entire not-Hillary vote. This year, voters are split among a host of candidates. And yet, Sanders is still leading in NH and pretty much won or came to a dead heat (depending on how the votes were counted) in Iowa. He has about a quarter of the Democrat voters in those two states rather than a half. I’d say that’s pretty darn good, considering the size of the field.

But what does it really mean? In other words – in a somewhat parallel situation to Trump and the Republican contenders in 2016 – as the field inevitably narrows, will those votes mainly go to Sanders or to another contender considered less radical?

Are Buttigieg and Klobuchar the Cruz and Rubio of 2020? Not in ideology, of course, but in terms of duking it out for way too long and splitting the vote, so that Sanders keeps winning?

In 2016 I thought if only either Cruz or Rubio (or other contenders) would drop out, all the others’ votes would go to the last Trump-opponent standing, and that person would win. But as time went on, I didn’t see that happening. I saw Trump getting a significant percentage of the votes of each person as that person exited. I began to realize that Trump could get the whole thing.

And I think something similar has a good chance of happening with Bernie. Will it? I certainly don’t know, but I see it as a strong possibility.

The Mueller investigation and Roger Stone: wheels within wheels

The New Neo Posted on by

There’s the deep state, and then there’s the deep deep state.

I think it’s wise to pay attention to Devin Nunes. So far, he has turned out to be spot on about what’s been happening behind the scenes:

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) warned as the onion is peeled on the Mueller team the American people will learn what they were “really doing.” In an interview with FOX Business host Lou Dobbs, Nunes also expressed his pleasure that President Trump is downsizing the National Security Council from roughly 500 people to 100.

“The lawyers that, you know, that stepped aside today that — that busted — that made the seven-to-nine-year recommendation — on the prosecutors, we believe that this is not going to be the only example. We think there’s other examples of things that they did during the Mueller investigation that I think you and your listeners and the American people will be very interested to learn in the coming weeks, as we start to unpeel the onion of what the Mueller team was really doing,” Nunes said Tuesday.

Nunes said Trump needs to look at other people that are part of “permanent bureaucracy” and remove them from the White House because the “place leaks like a sieve.” Nunes said given that there were a lot of Obama holdovers in the NSC it would be logical to assume that is where most of the leaks come from.

Please read the whole thing.

The left is up in arms about the resignations and the firings, which is absurd because Trump has every right to do what he’s doing, and if a Democrat had done it there would have been silence (or approval) from the MSM and the others.

During the Obama administration, many people remarked on how Obama and Holder were stacking the DOJ with leftist lawyers. It was no secret, and it was no secret why they were doing it, either. They had the right to do it, by the way. But it has borne fruit. And it was one of many many things Obama and his appointees did that made it clear what a leftist he was. The press thought it was just hunky dory, too. And they felt the same way when the Mueller investigation was stacked with leftists and Democrats as well (something that even a “fact-checking” site like Politifact found difficult if not impossible to refute, despite valiant efforts).

The bottom line is that Trump has not been allowed to be president. Even if he’s reelected by a strong majority, they still will not allow him. Everything he does can be twisted by his enemies into an abuse of power, and the MSM and the Democrats count on their voters to just take their word for it. For the most part, they do.

Those “moderate” Democrats

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “physicsguy” writes:

Trump needs to watch out for Buttigieg and Klobuchar. I think the moderate wing of the D party is starting to assert themselves and either of these two could be a formidable candidate appealing to the LIVs and soccer moms.

I know I keep saying the same thing and others disparage it: but it’s a long time until November and never underestimate the opponent. The reelection of Trump is by no means a sure thing. And retaking the House even less so.

Agreed.

Don’t underestimate the amount of sheer Trump-hatred out there. The more extreme fringe may not be very big, but the phenomenon sure is. If it were not so widespread, Trump’s approval ratings right now would be in the 60s and 70s. They’re definitely not.

If the Democrats manage to nominate a candidate who seems like he or she possesses enough marbles to not completely screw up, who mouths the right platitudes, and who appears moderate (despite being almost totally onboard with a Democratic agenda that is extraordinarily leftist), then many people will leap to that alternative and hold on tight.

Biden didn’t fill the bill in the “possesses enough marbles” category, and that’s why people are abandoning him. But whether the alternative ends up being Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Bloomberg, or a player to be named later, the Democratic electorate and its leadership is desperately seeking one and most likely will find one. Toss a coin at this point.

New Hampshire results

The New Neo Posted on by

So far the results are pretty much as anticipated, minus a few details. It’s indeed Sanders, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, in that order and not all that distant from each other. Then instead of Biden and Warren we have Warren and Biden, both doing poorly.

I had anticipated Bloomberg might get more than a smattering of votes, but I hadn’t realized he’s not on the ballot. Between that and the fact that he hasn’t participated in a debate, he’s really not a player yet.

Bennett and Yang are out. Were they ever in?

Warren gave her people quite a turn when she began a speech with words that sounded as though she might be leaving the race as well. But never fear, Warren supporters. She’s hanging on. As is Biden, although he left New Hampshire in a tremendous hurry.

Waiting for Durham

The New Neo Posted on by

We wait and wait, but my guess is that only the lawyer who hid the CIA-asset status of Carter Page will pay any real price. I hope I’m wrong and that bigger fish get caught, but my faith in that kind of thing is non-existent after so many disappointments.

Sara Carter warns:

“Former senior FBI officials that say if there aren’t indictments — if people don’t actually pay the price for what happened here — which was an attempted coup, basically, on the president of the United States, and also just destroying the civil liberties of an American citizen, Carter Page, then what’s going to stop the next person?” she told host Sean Hannity.

That has been obvious from the start. It also has been clear that the perpetrators felt they would never be caught, either because Hillary would become president or just because. After Trump was elected, they certainly didn’t cease and desist, so they must have felt their protection would continue.

At this point, I fear that even if a few of them do suffer major consequences, it still won’t be discouragement enough. After all, they almost succeeded, and they certainly succeeded in getting Trump impeached and energizing the opposition mightily. For a while, anyway. And as far as I can see, their lies are still believed by the vast majority of Democrats.

A Rolling Stone postmortem on the Democrat fiasco in Iowa

The New Neo Posted on by

From Matt Taibbi:

When historians pore over the Great Iowa Catastrophe of 2020, much of the blame will be focused on Acronym and Shadow, the two firms associated with the balky app that was supposed to count caucus results. For the conspiratorial-minded, the various political connections will be key: Acronym co-founder Tara McGowan is married to Buttigieg strategist Michael Halle, while former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe sits on Acronym’s board. Shadow had also been a client of both the Buttigieg and Biden campaigns in 2019.

But garden variety disorganization and stupidity were the major story lines underneath the terrible optics. From the first moment the caucus proceedings were delayed Monday night due to what the Iowa Democratic Party called “inconsistencies in the reporting,” Sanders supporters in particular felt they were in déjà vu territory. Orlando native Patty Duffy, an out-of-stater who captained for Sanders in the small town of Milo, had flashbacks to the run-up to the Hillary-Bernie convention.

“It was like we were back in 2016,” Duffy said. “Except this was worse.”

I have no idea what really happened in Iowa, but I have no problem believing there were shenanigans to deny Sanders a victory. I also have no problem believing that whoever ends up being nominated, most Democrats and all Independent NeverTrumpers and ex-GOP NeverTrumpers will vote for him or her.

It is indeed interesting to see how relatively united the Republican Party is behind Trump, and how much disarray there is among Democrats at the moment. That chaos is both a cause and a result of their flailing around for the last three years with only two messages to deliver: Trump is evil, and I have good intentions.

Jordan Peterson is ill, and his critics are happy

The New Neo Posted on by

Ghoulish of them. But is that any surprise?:

Ironically, the anti-Petersonians now seem far more fanatical than Peterson’s most faithful fans. This became clear in recent days, when some of Peterson’s critics — including, amazingly, a professor at the University of Ottawa — went online to express satisfaction that Peterson is being treated for dependence on benzodiazepine, an anti-anxiety medication.

That’s the way social media seems to work these days. Peterson has many enemies. I haven’t read what they’ve written, but any expressions of glee wouldn’t surprise me. To them, Jordan Peterson is a dangerous man because (among other things) he is defending free speech, and doing it in a very articulate manner. Till his illness.

His illness has been explained this way:

So: a man who has been open about his struggles with depression becomes addicted to prescription benzos (e.g., Valium), and nearly dies in detox … and lots of people who hate Jordan Peterson laugh at that.

Peterson has always seemed to me to be a strange combination of fragile and steel-strong. He obviously is a very intense and exceptionally intelligent person, and such people often live on a psychological razor’s edge. In addition, Peterson has never been the least bit shy about talking of his long history of depression, which runs in his family. One of his children has had major and unexplained health problems her entire life, perhaps of an auto-immune nature. And recently his wife – whom he met and fell in love with when they both were children in a small town in northern Canada – was diagnosed with what may be a fatal cancer.

Add that to the extraordinary pressure of his public life, and the schedule he keeps, and no wonder the man was taking tranquilizers. His idiosyncratic and severe symptoms while trying to withdraw may be just another example of his especially vulnerable constitution.

I hope for a full recovery, but this doesn’t sound good at all. Please send healing thoughts and prayers for Peterson and his family.