TWGB: The "Keeping Secrets" Service?

 

There is something very wrong with a picture wherein a government agency charged with protecting the physical well-being of the president and the vice-president becomes engaged in the protection of the president in what looks for all the world like a violation of his oath to defend the republic from all enemies, foreign and domestic. But that's what it looks like we have when the Secret Service seems to be engaging in shenanigans regarding their texts regarding what was witnessed in the lead-up to the events of January 6th, 2021. 

With the story of why the texts haven't materialized changing several times, it appears that now the texts have been recovered? Why, how fascinating! Is it possible the stories were a stall tactic that wasn't going to work if a whole lot of scrutiny fell on an agency that should also, being law enforcement recognize both their responsibility to hold on to data for record keeping purposes as a federal agency and also the ability of cyber forensics to recover data that isn't really gone? 

Yeah. Probably something like that. Should we feel weird about what those texts will say--like, knowing Mike Pence has a good instinct about the threat kind of weird?

Lordy Jim Comey

The amusement that gripped this hearing centered around how President Trump would respond to the testimony of elongated Boy Scout, former FBI Director Jim Comey. There was a threat made that he might live-Tweet this thing, which he mercifully did not, thus sparing the livers of pub-going politics-watchers who might have been fixing to make drinking games of Trump's assorted "go-to" defenses: "fake news", "Lying Jim Comey", "failing Senate Democrats" or whatever his busy thumbs wanted to brand on our eyeballs.  Somehow, POTUS' minders managed to  jingle keys or whatever they do to pacify his easily offended amour-propre and kept him above flinging his shit ex post Twitto.

Which is not to say Comey never landed a glove--he did.  He stopped short of saying there definitely was a case for obstruction of justice with Trump, but he laid it out nice and neat and implied that if there wasn't such a case when he was Director of the FBI, there sure was one now. He presented a view of his interactions with President-elect and President Trump that was suspicious of his motives based on multiple factors (Trump is not a truthful person and apparently had a pressing interest) which motivated him to keep notes. He understood that AG Sessions was potentially a compromised official, so he used his wherewithal to engineer a leak of his fully understandable note-taking (which is not classified, sensitive, or otherwise embargoed against being revealed by him as a private citizen to the best of my knowledge) to the press to prompt the appointment of a special counsel.

That is some adept stuff on his part, coming from a great understanding of the stakes and leverage of the various parties. And as a Clinton supporter, there is a part of me that wants to roar:

"Which would have been so blindingly great if you did all that before the election you long-ass galoot!"

And he didn't. Because despite putting his biggie-ole thumb on the scales prompted by Bill Clinton's tarmac escapade with Loretta Lynch(or, for all we know, attempt to just say howdy like folks do), Comey never said boo about the Russian hack into the DNC or the inquiry into whether the Trump Campaign was aware of it--even though this seemed obvious.

But that's Our Jim, isn't it? He is trying not to be partial. Emphasis on trying. I think he's trying to do the right thing, bless his heart. He isn't going to hang Trump by himself. But he very carefully lets on how it could be done.

I don't know where his "between opportunities" self goes from here. But based on his carefulness, he could go anywhere. And I surely hope his careful rigor hasn't somehow screwed himself. ("Hope", we learned just now, has a plethora of meanings. I don't think that plethora means what Trump supporters think it means.) Failing to be heroic at the first opportunity can backfire. But Comey deferred throwing himself on a grenade to deliver receipts. I respect his corner. It may prove more effective and more in line with our Constitution in the long run.

For me, the moment of truth was when he replied to idea of tapes of his interactions with Trump with something to the effect of "Lordy I hope there are". Which is as near to "Wish a mofo would" as a Boy Scout gets. I sensed that Trump's lying and weirdness made Comey mad, because Comey takes this seriously, and Trump doesn't. Comey seemed choked up talking about his FBI folks, like love was there. Trump doesn't have that.

I believe Comey. He doesn't have any reason to lie. Trump doesn't even need reasons, but likely has them.

Lynn Westmoreland: The Woman Tempted us and We Did Bite

So, since I've been doing a lot of posts about the 2016 GOP contenders, I think it makes sense to do a post that is not about them--and this little piece of, I guess, revisionism, made me giggle.

Last month, Clinton testified before the GOP-led committee investigating the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The hearing stretched 11 hours and was widely seen as a bust for Republicans.

“As you know, some of you may have watched the marathon Hillary Clinton fiasco, and I say that because Trey Gowdy, the chairman of the committee, wanted to interview her in private, and she said, ‘No, I want to do this in public,’” Westmoreland said in a recent speech uploaded to YouTube.

“Now to me, that was us stepping in a trap because we should have known that she was going to go on and just stall, debate, filibuster, on these answers to make it go as long as possible, so we would look cruel,” he continued.

So, she tricked the entire House GOP by requesting the transparency to put the hearing on camera, which somehow drew this out to eleven hours, to make them look bad?

Okay, player. Now, I've seen some funny revisions of what went on--after all, I picked on poor Childe Luke the MTP Dauphin regarding his silly-ass "both-sides" take.  Chuck Todd did a mildly better job at the same kind of both-sides sheep-dip operation.  But the last I checked, Trey Gowdy was running this travelling show, and that basically makes him quality control for the snake oil that results. He can't blame Clinton for how long the thing went because--his team were the ones asking the questions. They could have asked any question with whatever relevance they wanted. But they asked the ones they did, and acted like right gits in the process, as if they had never been on the television machine before.

Guys--television is actually "old media" by this point. We've got Youtube now. That's really dumb.

Rep. Westmoreland is hoping his hearers are at least as, if not more, dumb than congressional Republicans. I'm not sure how that's even possible. But actually being pissed that the foxy Madame Secretary outsmarted all of their asses? (He's the one saying that.) That's priceless.

Speaking of Witch-Hunts, You Know that IRS Deal?

I followed the IRS scandlet like I don't know what. I was never certain that there was a "there" there. It always seemed to me that certain IRS employees picked up on a trend in non-profit applications, and wanted to goal-tend a little to make sure that dodgy groups set up in ways that solicited donations, weren't actually for-profit ops using their political nature as a disguise. It strikes me as a little bit of a synchronicity that recent calls for the head of John Koskinen, IRS Commissioner, for what honestly looks like a "high crime or misdemeanor to be determined later" coincides with the DOJ clearing of Lois Lerner, who was at the center of questioning largely because she rejected getting questioned by pleading the fifth.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. It is constitutional.

And it might be a little bit true that these politically-leaning organizations aren't simon-pure, and do themselves a piece of politicking.

It may even come about some organizations are grifty enough that GOP congresscritters are bound to take notice--not that there's anything wrong with that. It is constitutional. I think Congress should take a look at whether these PACs are really kosher.

Why wouldn't I think that? (Krugman ties it all together with the simplest connection--the modern conservative movement is a grift.)





Trey Gowdy Would Like Folks to Please Shut Up

As should surprise none of us, House Select Committee Chair Trey Gowdy would like his colleagues who are not on the committee to please be shutting up about what the committee is for. (And some of the people who have worked with the committee he'd probably like to also shut up.)

I bet he would. When people start talking, sometimes they also start paying attention. For example, it has been alleged that some of the people surrounding former Secretary Clinton are being called for specifically partisan reasons. This issue came up regarding the recent hearing focusing on Clinton's long-time assistant, Huma Abedin. (Gowdy did not attend that day.)

But what's more interesting is that there might be some discrepancies regarding what the Committee is putting out: for example, an allegation that one of Clinton's emails "outed" a CIA resource, turns out to have been true. 

But really, shit happens, right?

I probably won't have much more to say until Clinton is interviewed later this week, but I'm pretty sure he should know by now that a lot of us are going to be watching really closely. And probably won't shut up if we catch anything short of fair play.

Apparently, Obamacare isn't "Foolproof"

So Congressman Cory Gardner decided to opt-out of his employer-provided benefits so that he could be in the same boat as his constituents. Which makes no sense.  Employer-provided benefits are the norm. It's one of the things we consider part of a good compensation package. Now, he's unhappy because the plan he chose is being discontinued because it was incompatible with certain ACA regs.

So let's get this straight--he chose not to have employer-provided benefits, and then he chose, what? A catastrophic insurance plan? Some high-deductible insurance of last resort? Because that is the reasonable way a person provides for themselves and their family?  Of course it isn't. The reason HHS Secretary Sebelius wouldn't give up her federally-provided plan is because that's just foolish*. She gets coverage through her employer, and has no more reason to give up that part of her compensation than a banker or a lawyer or a cop or anybody else with a "good job with paid bennies" would.