Wednesday, 24 February 2021

Daily Digest

Daily Digest

Link to Power LinePower Line

Another Appalling Biden Nominee

Posted: 24 Feb 2021 04:27 PM PST

(John Hinderaker)

Joe Biden has nominated Debra Haaland to be Secretary of the Interior. Why? She is a Congresswoman from New Mexico and has some Native American heritage. I assume she is fully compliant with the Democrats’ far-left checklist; otherwise, she has no apparent qualifications for the job.

Haaland’s nomination came before the Senate Energy Committee yesterday and today. She did not perform well. To put it charitably, she seemed like a nice lady who has little idea what the Interior Department does and no knowledge that would equip her to make decisions on critical issues that would come before her as Secretary.

Here she displays her understanding of pipeline economics:


Here, she has no idea whether transporting oil by pipeline is safer than by train or truck. Spoiler: it is.


Nevertheless, she wouldn’t commit as to whether the Department of the Interior should try to retroactively do away with existing, fully-permitted pipelines. It is hard to tell whether she is being cagey, or just has no idea what she is talking about:

The Biden administration wants to do away with the domestic oil and gas industry, one of the strongest and most important components of America’s economy. Is Haaland on board with this agenda? It seems like an important question that goes to the heart of her prospective duties as Secretary of the Interior. But she is in such a fog (or so disingenuous) that she can’t figure out whether suppressing domestic production will lead to an increase in imports from other countries. Nor does she know–not having been briefed!–whether those countries have environmental standards equal to ours:


Is Debra Haaland grotesquely unqualified to be Secretary of the Interior in terms of both experience and intellect, or is she a far-left-winger bumbling her way through a confirmation hearing on purpose, so she can unleash her leftist agenda on the rest of us? Probably some of both.

This exchange is consistent with either interpretation. Haaland has said that revenues lost to public schools due to shutting down oil and gas revenues should be made up by selling marijuana and taxing such sales. One could say that her position–which she refused to disavow before the Senate Committee-perfectly sums up today’s Democratic Party. Who needs industry, hard work and actual productivity when you can just get high? And how could anyone see a problem in using marijuana sales to fund public education?

Debra Haaland is, on the most charitable interpretation, a pathetic Cabinet nominee. But Joe Manchin, the Ruler of All Things in the Senate these days, has announced that he will vote to confirm her. So good luck to our new Secretary of the Interior. She is going to need it.

Judge Sullivan strikes again

Posted: 24 Feb 2021 04:17 PM PST

(Paul Mirengoff)

During the 1980s, Rayful Edmond III was the narcotics kingpin of Washington D.C. He probably did more harm to residents of the city than anyone else in history.

According to this report in the Washington Post, Edmond oversaw an operation that brought around 1,700 pounds of cocaine into Washington every month. Law enforcement officials estimate that he was making around $2 million a week from drug dealing between 1985 and 1989.

The cocaine epidemic in which Edmond played such a central role wrecked the lives of countless Washingtonians. The violence associated with it caused the city’s homicide rate to spike. D.C. became known as the nation’s murder capital. Many pregnant women became frequent users, giving birth to underweight infants who were addicted to the drug.

Edmond was personally involved in the D.C. murder fest. That’s why, years later when he began cooperating with law enforcement in the hope of getting his sentence reduced, Edmond was able to provide information about 20 unsolved killings.

Edmond was sentenced by a federal court in D.C. to life imprisonment without parole. But now, Judge Emett Sullivan has reduced that sentence to 20 years.

Edmond has already served considerably more time than that. However, he was also sentenced to 30 years by a court in Pennsylvania for dealing drugs from prison in that state. So depending on what happens there, Edmond may have to remain in jail.

Not thanks to Judge Sullivan, though.

Sullivan reduced Edmond’s sentence because he cooperated with federal authorities investigating drug dealing. But this was only after Edmond had continued to deal drugs while in prison and had received that second conviction.

Sullivan claimed that Edmond’s cooperation showed his remorse. Nonsense. Edmond may or may not be remorseful (and why should we care if he is?). However, his cooperation is evidence only of his desire to obtain a reduced sentence.

Because of Edmond’s cooperation, federal prosecutors filed a motion in Sullivan’s court for a sentence reduction. However, the reduction they sought was to 40 years, not 20.

Sullivan criticized the prosecutors for not giving enough weight to Edmond’s cooperation. He worried that reductions like the one they sought for Edmond won’t encourage other convicts to cooperate.

But career prosecutors have a far better understanding than Sullivan of the incentives that will cause inmates to cooperate with them, and of how to balance this consideration with the need to severely punish society’s worst offenders.

Unfortunately, Judge Sullivan seems to get off on imposing his views of how prosecutors should go about their job — even when it’s unlawful for him to do so.

Sullivan asked that D.C. residents be polled as to how they feel about an early release for Edmond. I never realized that criminal sentencing was a popularity contest.

If it is, Edmond lost. Even with the passage of more than 30 years, a majority of respondents with an opinion said the drug kingpin should remain in prison.

Sullivan ignored the result of his own poll, just as he ignored the prosecutors’ recommendation.

This month Sullivan announced that he will retire from full-time duty on the federal bench. That’s the good news. The bad news is he will take senior status.

Thus, we lack even the consolation that Sullivan’s attempt to release Edmond, arguably the worst criminal in D.C. history, will be his parting gift to the city.

Should we believe Merrick Garland or our own eyes?

Posted: 24 Feb 2021 10:28 AM PST

(Paul Mirengoff)

I don’t consider Merrick Garland a moderate liberal, and I don’t think he came across as one during his confirmation hearing yesterday. He couldn’t even bring himself to say that illegally entering the U.S. should be a crime.

I consider Garland a front man for the radicalization and politicization of the Department of Justice. As Julie Kelly puts it, “he'll be a figurehead [like Robert Mueller] and Weismann-type prosecutors will run the show.”

Two of those who, if confirmed, will run the show are Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke. Gupta is Joe Biden’s nominee for Associate Attorney General. Clarke is his nominee for Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.

Yesterday, Sen. Mike Lee asked Garland about these two. Garland dutifully vouched for them on the basis of having “gotten to know them.” The question is: What else could he say? Also: Whom should we believe, Merrick Garland or our lying eyes?

On Gupta:

Lee: I'm going to start with some questions that can be yes or no. . . . Do you believe individuals who advocate for the rights of unborn human beings are rendered unfit for public office by virtue of having engaged in such advocacy?"

Garland: No.

Lee: Do you believe that efforts to purge voter rolls of individuals who have either died or have left the state in question or to require voter identification are racially discriminatory and an assault on voting rights?

Garland: This one is one I can't answer yes or no because you're asking about motivations of individuals, some of whom may have discriminatory purpose and some of whom have no discriminatory purpose.

Lee: Okay. Okay, I think that answers my question there because I guess what I'm asking is does an individual without knowing more than that, is there anything about those comments or support for those positions that in and of themselves would make that person a racist or an assault on voting rights?

Garland: Again, there's nothing about the comment itself but there's such a thing as circumstantial evidence obviously and if there's enormously disparate impact of things that somebody continues to propose, it's not unreasonable to draw conclusions from that. The mere fact of the statement, no.

Lee: Do you believe Republicans in the United States, and by Republicans I mean as a whole, are determined to leave our communities to the mercy of people and institutions driven by hate, bigotry and fear of any threat to the status quo.

Garland: I don't make generalizations about members of political parties; I would never do that.

Lee: I appreciate that and wouldn't expect otherwise. The reason I raise these ones is these are questions that have been drawn from comments made by Vanita Gupta, who's been nominated to be the associate attorney general, has advocated for each of these positions.

Garland: Well, Senator, I know Vanita Gupta now quite well; I didn't know her before, but since the nomination, I've gotten a chance to talk with her and speak with her. I have to tell you, I regard her as a person of great integrity and a person who is dedicated to the mission of the department and particularly equal justice under law.

Lee: I'm not asking you to weigh in on her as a person; I'm just talking about the comments.

(Emphasis added)

On Clarke:

Lee: Would an individual's past statements, statements in the past, as an adult, declaring that one racial group is superior to another, would statements like that be relevant to an evaluation of whether such a person should be put in charge of running the Department of Justice's Civil Rights division?

Garland: Well, Senator, I read in the last few days these allegations about Kristen Clarke, who I've also gotten to know, who I also trust, who I believe is a person of integrity, whose views of the Civil Rights division I have discussed with her, and they are in line with my own. I have every reason to want her; she is an experienced former line prosecutor of hate crimes and we need somebody like that to be running the —

Lee: I'm asking about the statement; I'm not asking about her as a person; I'm asking about the statement. In the abstract, would someone who has made that comment, would that comment itself be relevant to the question whether that person, having made that statement, should be put in charge of running the Civil Rights division?

Garland: All I can tell you is I've had many conversations with her about her views about the Civil Rights division and what kind of matter she would investigate

Lee: What about anti-Semitic comments, would those be relevant to someone wanting to run the Civil Rights division?

Garland; You know my views about anti-Semitism; no one needs to question those.

Lee: I'm not questioning your—

Garland: I know you're not, but I want you to know I'm a pretty good judge of what an anti-Semite is, and I do not believe that she is an anti-Semite and I do not believe she is discriminatory in any sense.

Lee: Tell me this: Judge, you are a man of integrity and one who honors and respects the laws. What assurances can you give us, as one who has been nominated to serve as the Attorney General of the United States, that you, as confirmed as Attorney General of the United States, what assurances can you give Americans who are Republican, who are pro-life, who are religious people who are members of certain minority groups, in short, half, or more than half of the country, telling them that the U.S. Department of Justice, if you're confirmed, will protect them if Department of Justice leaders have condoned radical positions like those ones that I've described?

Garland: I'll say it again: I don't believe that either Vanita or Kristen condone those positions and I have complete faith in them, but we are a leadership team, along with Alisa Monaco that will run the Department, and the final decision is mine. The buck stops with me, as Harry Truman said, I will assure the people you're talking about I am a strong believer in religious liberty and there will not be any discrimination under my watch.

(Emphasis added)

It’s important to note that Garland did not select either Gupta or Clarke for the positions in question. He got to “know” them only after they had been picked by Team Biden. And clearly, he had no choice but to vouch for them at his confirmation hearing.

But even if Garland was giving his honest opinions of the two based on his conversations with them, these opinions count for next to nothing.

Garland may be a decent guy and a competent court of appeals judge, but he’s not a seer. Gupta and Clarke weren’t going to confess to him their raw hatred of Republicans, their most extreme political views, or any strands of anti-Semitism and Black supremacy in their thinking.

But Gupta’s intemperate comments about her political opponents, which approach those of Neera Tanden in their venom, are there, in writing, for all to see. So is Clarke’s history of advocating Black supremacy and promoting anti-Semitism. So is her unwavering support for racial discrimination against Whites.

The Senate should confirm Merrick Garland. He’s the nominee for Attorney General one would expect in a Democratic administration — nothing better, nothing worse.

The Senate should not confirm Vanita Gupta and Kristen Clarke. The public record, from which Sen. Lee’s questions were drawn, shows them to be nasty extremists committed to key elements of the radical BLM agenda — whatever Garland’s true impression of them might be.

Even in a Democratic administration, we should expect, and demand, better.

What To Watch Today

Posted: 24 Feb 2021 09:58 AM PST

(Steven Hayward)

Two events are worth watching today—one a small detail that may morph into a significant detail, and the second a new angle on Gov. Cuomo’s mounting political troubles that may yet force his resignation or ouster from office.

First, the Senate. Some time today—perhaps by the time this item goes live—the Senate will get a ruling from the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, on whether the $15 minimum wage proposal can be included in the $1.9 trillion porkulus spending bill that Democrats plan to pass through the “reconciliation” process that only needs a simple majority, which means Republicans can’t stop it with a filibuster. A minimum wage hike is clearly not a fiscal matter, and therefore should be ruled “not germane” and therefore not included in a reconciliation vote. Maybe MacDonough will capitulate to Democratic wishes, but if not, the parliamentarian’s rulings can be overturned by a simple majority vote, so if all 50 Democrats hold the line, they can include the minimum wage hike with Vice President Harris breaking a tie. And if Senate Democrats are willing to use their bare majority to change the rules for this issue, what other rules might they change in the same way, such as the filibuster? Joe Manchin, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you. . .

Second, there is bombshell story breaking today on Medium leveling serious charges of sexual harassment against Gov. Cuomo, by Lindsay Boylan, a progressive-leaning pol in New York City who worked as an aide to the governor. Here’s how it opens:

"Let's play strip poker."

I should have been shocked by the Governor's crude comment, but I wasn't.

We were flying home from an October 2017 event in Western New York on his taxpayer-funded jet. He was seated facing me, so close our knees almost touched. His press aide was to my right and a state trooper behind us.

"That's exactly what I was thinking," I responded sarcastically and awkwardly. I tried to play it cool. But in that moment, I realized just how acquiescent I had become.

Governor Andrew Cuomo has created a culture within his administration where sexual harassment and bullying is so pervasive that it is not only condoned but expected. His inappropriate behavior toward women was an affirmation that he liked you, that you must be doing something right. He used intimidation to silence his critics. And if you dared to speak up, you would face consequences.

The story goes on from there, and by all means take it in if you have time. Unlike many accusations that can be categorized as “she said, he said” (or without any external evidence at all, like Christine Blasey Ford), this account comes with some circumstantial corroborating evidence in the form of text messages and emails that suggest at the very least that Gov. Cuomo has a “reputation” among his own staff. And the story says there are many women besides Boylan who have had similar unpleasant experiences with Gov. Cuomo. Maybe the dam is about the break and wash him out of office?

So let’s see whether CNN and other media outlets that scoured the landscape over the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh will go to the same exertions to follow up this allegation. I repair to the opinion I offered yesterday—there is a critical mass of Democrats in New York who want to destroy Cuomo. Stock up on popcorn.

BONUS—I hope everyone caught our President’s latest struggle with the Teleprompter (just 16 seconds):

Chaser—if you want to find media pondering this, you’ll have to go all the way to Australia (5 min):

Our men in Havana

Posted: 24 Feb 2021 05:00 AM PST

(Scott Johnson)

Tim Weiner is a former New York Times reporter and author of Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA (2007). The history of the CIA, according to Weiner, is a history of the failures of the CIA.

The CIA chose not to ignore the book. It posted a response by the agency’s historian that the agency has unfortunately removed from its site. The CIA historian’s response to Weiner’s book was linked in J.R. Bullington’s review for American Diplomacy here, but the link now draws up a blank page. I read the CIA response at the time Weiner’s book was published and thought it was pretty good. Writing from my memory of it, I think it informs Bullington’s review.

My favorite writer on intelligence issues, however, is Edward Jay Epstein, with whom I have gotten friendly over the past 15 years. Indeed, Ed is my model of a journalist, period. Ed praised Weiner’s book in attention-getting terms in his Wall Street Journal review (accessible online here). Ed particularly appreciated elements of Weiner’s book that supported Ed’s continuing defense of former CIA counterintelligence chief James Jesus Angleton.

One astounding paragraph of Weiner’s book relates the penetration of the CIA by Cuban intelligence:

In June 1987, Major Florentino Aspillaga Lombard, the chief of Cuban intelligence in Czechoslovakia, drove across the border to Vienna, walked into the American embassy, and defected to Jim Olson, the CIA chief of station. He revealed that every Cuban agent recruited by the agency over the past twenty years was a double–pretending to be loyal to the United States while working in secret for Havana. It was a genuine shock, and hard to believe. But CIA analysts glumly concluded after a long and painful review that the major was telling the truth. That same summer, a trickle of fresh intelligence about the deaths of the CIA’s agents began coming in from a new set of Soviet and Soviet-bloc military and intelligence officers. It grew to a stream, and then a flowing river, and seven years passed before the terrible realization that it was disinformation delivered to mystify and mislead the CIA.

Olson sat for a fascinating interview in Foreign Policy’s I Spy podcast series. I have embedded the podcast with Olson below. I asked Ed Epstein to check it out. Ed commented:

Olson dates the Cuban penetration of CIA operations to 1962. In 1962-1964, the CIA was running assassination plots against Castro in parallel to Oswald’s trips to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City. The key agent was AMLASH (Roland Cubela), who was meeting with his CIA case officer on Nov. 22, 1963 to get equipment to kill Castro. You can find it in my chapter in Annals of Unsolved Crimes as well as my paperback on Amazon, Political Assassinations.

Ed’s most recent discussion of the Kennedy assassination makes up the epilogue to The Annals of Unsolved Crime (2014), but three of Ed’s books bear on the Kennedy assassination: Inquest (1966, on the Warren Commission), Counterplot (1968, on the odious Jim Garrison), and Legend (1978, on Lee Harvey Oswald). Anyone interested in the subject will want to take in the podcast with Olson below.
at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

BREAKING: North Carolina automotive group acquires 7 Upstate dealerships

Breaking news from GSA Business Report Click here to view this message in a browser window. ...