Featured Post

The Democrats Resurrect Stalin and Beria

Sitting in my hotel room in Manhattan while the Diplowife and the Diplodaughter spend what's left in my bank account, I was reading a gr...

Sunday, March 12, 2017

More Craziness from the Anti-Trump Clique

After a long, long time of ignoring my 1973 Mach-1, I took her for a spin this sunny and warm morning here in southern California. Hadn't started the ol' beast in some three months; I was sure the battery would be dead. But, no! I forgot that Trump is president, and things all around are much better. She fired right up, and with a bit of choke, and after some fits, was soon running like a champ.



Drove on some rural roads, and the V-8 sound of the 351 Cleveland cleared my head so I could think about the continuing insanity aimed against that very president.

Where to start? Just a sampler.

How about the "outrage" over the Trump administration replacing the US Attorneys? You can look up the media coverage of this and it seems like a replay of the Night of the Long Knives, of Stalin's Purges, of the Mexican Revolution's war against the Catholic Church, of . . . well, you get the point. It is, in fact, a supreme example of a Nothingburger with an extra order of Nothingfries. These US Attorneys are political appointees; an incoming administration, especially of the opposite party, is not required to keep them on anymore than it is required to keep on Ambassadors, Cabinet Secretaries, White House staff, and a host of other officials.

In the Department of Justice regulations governing the appointment of these Attorneys, we read (Section 3-2.120),
United States Attorneys are subject to removal at the will of the President. See Parsons v. United States, 167 U.S. 324 (1897).
If you want more, you can go ahead and read Parsons vs United States (also here) in which the Supreme Court affirms the power of the President to remove US Attorneys. I guess this 120-year-old ruling was not included in Attorney Preet Bharat's legal education, since he seemed to think that the job of US Attorney for the Southern District of New York belonged to him by right of, well, by right of his wanting the job. He refused to resign as requested by the Attorney General, and got fired. The press, forgetting that Obama and Clinton had done the same thing, had a field day, bemoaning the "politicization" of justice, praising Bharat, and wondering what would happen to all the cases he was working.

Two observations: 1) if the press is full of praise for a prosecutor, it's time to get rid of him/her; and, 2) the cases will continue. Not hard. Nobody is irreplaceable. The President has the right to name his people to key slots, and the Senate can accept or reject them. When I got pushed out of the State Department by the Obamistas, foreign policy continued . . . just saying. Fake crisis. Fake news.

The wiretap story. This one is getting confusing and both sides have muddied the waters. The Obamistas, however, are the more guilty party.

Remember all that Russia is hacking our election stuff? Here for example. The Dems seemed to have "proof" that Trump's people were in constant and close contact with the Russians, who were actively working to get Trump elected. That "proof" included evidence of contacts between General Flynn and AG Sessions with the Russians. Flynn got so fed up, he quit. Sessions recused himself from any investigation into the matter. There were stories of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) requests to monitor a server in Trump Tower that was in communication with a Russian bank. Lots of leaks from the intel bureaucracy implying there was all sorts of evidence of Trump-Putin collaboration.

When Trump exploded--ill advised?--that Obama had him wiretapped, the press suddenly shifted gears saying there was no such evidence and demanded Trump provide it--unlike the fact that the other side never provided any evidence of Trump-Russia links. One might ask, if there is proof of such links, it must come from surveillance, no? Or is it just made up? Can't have it both ways, unless, of course, and I fear this is where we are actually, there was surveillance, it found nothing, AND results are being made up via anonymous leaks.

Anyhow, Txiki is barking up a storm in the backyard and my wife is convinced it is another attack by the reptile brigade. Must go check.


22 comments:

  1. Bharat claimed that he was not allowed to talk to the President 'by protocol'.
    What?
    POTUS is yer boss... one who can refuse to talk to his boss does not have a boss.

    I suspect this is more faux-outrage... let's not forget who was elected to the presidency.

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
  2. What a Beast!

    The car, that is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Left demands that Trump prove that he was wire-tapped by Obama. Does anyone believe that, if he did, the MSM would believe him? Smart like a fox.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Left including Senator John McCain.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Apparently part of the problem is that Bharat met with Trump after the election and before the inauguration, and was "promised" he could continue in his job. That suited him fine, as he has become a legend in his own mind given his penchant for pursuing high level NY officials from both sides of the aisle.

    Now he thinks the President has "welched on a deal". And of course the Obamixtas (great term) are floating rumors that Bharat was about to investigate Trump financial dealings, which explains why he would "turn against Bharat".

    The truth is (but that's a silly concept when contemplating Obamixta propagandists), Bharat had reached his "use by" date. And his refusal to resign was a stupid bit of theater -- what if President Trump had done nothing for a few days and left him dangling in the wind after telling him to turn in his resignation? That would have eclipsed all reason at the NYTimes until it was resolved, with them guessing by turns that Trump was going to leave him in place or force him out. That would have been a bit of deserved nastiness on Trump's part.

    Love the car. Pretty small for two large dogs, though.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Your red speedster reminds me of the time a friend was up before the beak for speeding. He knew he was doomed when the policeman began his evidence with "The red MG .....".

    ReplyDelete
  7. No, no, no. The left never requires proof. They think something is true, therefore it is, no proof required. But Trump? Everything bad or evil that has ever happened anywhere, ever is his fault, up to and including the fact that I need extra coffee on a Monday morning. Any "proof" provided to show this must therefore be a figment of his imagination. Even if there were a recording of Obama directing a wiretap, that would be fake evidence to the left.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bush fired U.S. Attorneys in his 2nd term for performance reasons and we already went through all this outrage. I think it was at that time reiterated that U.S. Attorneys are political appointees and the President can fire them for any, or no, reason.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy






    ReplyDelete
  9. I find the conservative reporting on the wiretapping story somewhat absurd. Surprise/shock at Trump's claim he has been wire tapped/bugged and rush to see if there is any evidence? Well yes, we should get the evidence. But in the NYT stories about FISA warrants, the lib media and Deep State have provided some of it themselves.

    Moreover, not only did Trump became the front runner early on, he stayed with the birther issue for years. Given Obama's track record, why would anyone find shocking the idea he would want Trump wiretapped and otherwise surveilled?

    Trump has talked about concerns about hacking - he must have also thought about the rest. Bugs can be planted, remote equipment or invisible drones hovering outside a window can pick up sound. Virtually invisible micro-transmitters in virtually invisible micro-dots can be placed on clothes by someone brushing by. Does one have any way of knowing if cell calls are tapped/intercepted? What about smart phones being hacked into for data? There are devices and apps sold which supposedly tell you. But I assume gov't has ways to avoid detection by those. What about hacking computers for data and emails? TV and other smart devices can be turned into listening devices. Those are some of the things I thought all along Trump was up against.

    The only shocking thing to me is that the Admin. even bothered with FISA warrants. Obama constrained by a FISA court or even wanting to bother to apply to one? Get real.

    And Britain and America routinely get around anti-surveillance laws by helping each other out by doing surveillance on each other's citizens. Supposedly, the FBI was willing to hire a former British spook for the opportunity info he had collected.


    I don't think this "wiretapping" in the FISA warrants we know about is even the beginning of it.

    Note: the stories talk about "wiretaps." Do the writers mean only land lines? What about "intercepts" of cell calls? And emails? The term "wire tapping" is intriguing. The term is now also used in connection with cell phones. However, NSA-speak that I've come across tends to be heavy on the term "intercept, not "wire tap." I guess they might also use "wire tap," and I don't know what term they use in FISA applications. But I think the FISA warrants we know about are FBI. What have CIA and the NSA been up to? And Treasury, which as apparently been investigating ties or transactions with Russian banks.

    What type(s) of surveillace are the writers writing about - what do they think Trump is talking about, done by which agency or agencies (from which country). Do they know?

    In other words, this subject of surveillance is much broader than just phone calls and could involve more than one agency (or country). And I don't see why anyone would find it surprising that Trump thinks he was "wire tapped" - and in every other way surveilled. And I don't think most of the writers writing about this, especially the pundit types, have a clue what they are writing about.

    One other thing: The RNC supposedly foiled hackers with the help of the FBI. Really? What about hacks/wire taps/bugging/intercepts by the Obama Admin. itself (or foreign a surrogate for it)? Willing to bet it didn't happen?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Diplomat

      Thx. News today from Fox is that Brits did the wiretaps, so there is no FISA trail.



      http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/03/judge_napolitano_says_that_british_intelligence_provided_obama_admin_with_surveillance_data_on_trump_tower_phone_conversations.html

      That's what I suspected, given the May government's attitude towards Trump and the desirability of leaving no FISA trail. (What does that say about their commitment to Brexit that they would help Obama and screw Trump?)

      What I find most scary is the key GOP lawmakers know everything you and I know about surveillance, and about the 5 (4?) Eyes cooperation, especially between the U.S. and Brits in spying on each other's citizens. I wrote in my first comment that the commentators and reporters were clueless. But the GOP lawmakers aren't. To my eye, they are doing everything possible to hurt, not help, Trump in this.

      Delete
    2. I wrote in my first comment that the commentators and reporters were clueless. But the GOP lawmakers aren't. To my eye, they are doing everything possible to hurt, not help, Trump in this.


      Good point. Concur.



      pmc

      Delete
  10. Dear 'Mad,

    I'm sure the pup was simply alerting you to the presence of a progressive ... they do appear to be reptilian in their carnivorous behavior towards each other, anyway.

    The Trump Administration has a lot on its plate. Hercules had it easy with his labors. No wonder that some things get a bit sloppy.

    Green Bear

    ReplyDelete
  11. Fwiw, sharp hospital blocks your site. :(

    ReplyDelete
  12. Modern "digital" mobile (cell) phones are MUCH harder to "tap" than the old analogue system.

    The signal is a stream of blocks of numbers. This is then shuffled about to a set algorithm to provide, not so much "added security" as "drop-out" reduction / error correction. This is not dissimilar to the way CDs are made and then read and decoded in your player (CD data is stored and recovered using what is known as CIRC; (Cross-Interleaved, Reed-Solomon Code).

    The "big kids", (Government agencies) simply warrant up, (with any luck), and intercept the signals at the exchanges. They also have the decryption keys to the digital phone systems.

    "Cell" phones operate within a network where they are constantly shunted from tower to tower, depending on system usage and RF signal strength between the tower and the user's phone. The frequency "block" used by a call may also shift as the system constantly adjusts to accommodate traffic requirements.

    Hence the relative simplicity of having "mandated" interception systems operating via the exchanges.

    "Mobile" devices also act as quite accurate "tracking devices", because the networks constantly log the location via signal switching data. That is why the bills note the location of the "tower" through which your call was initially directed, the destination of that call, as well as its duration.

    Ever had your cheap stereo "chirp and chatter" for no apparent reason? It is the phone in your pocket chatting to the network and the system updating your location and signal status, (at the very least).

    NEVER say anything on a "shoe-phone' that you would not like to hear played back at your trial.

    See also: "e-mail".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Modern "digital" mobile (cell) phones are MUCH harder to "tap" than the old analogue system." -AnonymousMarch 13, 2017 at 9:26 PM

      Nice piece! Curious though, is my old reliable "Nokia released the 6010 on September 12, 2004." considered modern or antique for the purposes of wire-tapping? I just want to be able to say thanks but no thanks, with prejudice, next time "she who must be obeyed" tries to replace my "dumb phones" with a "smartphone" ;)

      OW~~~


      Delete
  13. Not a fan of the '73 styling, but love the Cleveland. Huge top end on that engine.

    ReplyDelete
  14. We had a '65 Country Sedan, my father's first new car at age 48- I believe it had a 352? Is that correct? All I know is I got it in 1973, and it still went like a bat out of hell- a station wagon!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Those old heavy iron engines will still run after the Norks set off the big EMP, too.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Not sure why people are so concerned about "wiretaps" vs "intercepts" vs "surveillance"? Hasn't it been established that every word spoken on a phone (landline or cell), every text and every computer keystroke is being vacuumed by NSA and deposited in Utah?

    Doesn't a FISA warrant just permit mining of NSA data? As someone who still listens to "albums" "wiretap" can certainly mean NSA database queries to me!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Nice looking 'Stang! I had a '71 Mach-1 like yours. Painted it black lacquer, for keeping a low profile, but now I'm thinking I should have done it in red. (Red paint cost a lot more than other colors.) It was originally a lousy green. Yuck.

    Bought it because it had the 429ci Super Cobra Jet. Holley, 4.11 Detroit Locker differential w/31 spline axles, and Ram Air hood scoops.

    It also had the very rare Automatic Transmission (C6) option, modified by Fairbanks for Ford. Ford claimed 370hp (snigger). Dyno tests on u-tube show over 500hp on the crappy gas we have now. Got 5 mpg around town, 10 mpg freeway.

    Next owner put it into a quardrail doing a performance run on the Bay Bridge, when it spun the tires shifting into high gear.

    ReplyDelete