Robert Mueller may delay bringing obstruction charges against Trump and his associates, until he has also completed his collusion and conspiracy investigations.

Courtesy of Bloomberg:

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice is said to be close to completion, but he may set it aside while he finishes other key parts of his probe, such as possible collusion and the hacking of Democrats, according to current and former U.S. officials. 

That’s because Mueller may calculate that if he tries to bring charges in the obstruction case -- the part that may hit closest to Trump personally -- witnesses may become less cooperative in other parts of the probe, or the president may move to shut it down altogether. 

The revelation is a peek into Mueller’s calculations as he proceeds with his many-headed probe, while pressure builds from the president’s advisers and other Republicans to show progress or wrap it up. 

The obstruction portion of the probe could likely be completed after several key outstanding interviews, including with the president and his son, Donald Trump Jr. The president’s lawyers have been negotiating with Mueller’s team over such an encounter since late last year. But even if Trump testifies in the coming weeks, Mueller may make a strategic calculation to keep his findings on obstruction secret, according to the current and former U.S. officials, who discussed the strategy on condition of anonymity.

Mueller may have concerns that if he moves forward with the obstruction charges that Trump will pull out all of the stops in shutting him down.

Apparently while Trump still has some small hope of vindication, he is less likely to freak out.

However that freak out is definitely coming.

Courtesy of Raw Story: 

Special counsel Robert Mueller and his prosecutors have invoked an unusual "conspiracy to defraud the government" charge to ensnare a Russian cyber network and could use the same legal strategy to go after President Trump and his associates, even if the conspiracy is not linked to a criminal act.

Last month, Mr. Mueller, a Republican and former FBI director indicted 13 Russian nationals connected to the Internet Research Agency (IRA) Russian "troll farm," accusing the IRA of interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election by spreading fake news stories through U.S. social media. The same approach was employed in securing a plea deal last month with Rick Gates, the aide for former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. 

What has attracted attention in legal circles is the underlying legal theory behind the indictments, accusing the Russians of essentially committing a crime by preventing agencies of the U.S. government from carrying out the duties. Mr. Mueller appears to be leveraging the theory "into a powerful instrument with respect to both foreign and domestic actors," according to a recent article on Lawfare, a national security blog by the Lawfare Institute and Brookings Institution. 

Emma Kohse, Harvard International Law Journal editor-in-chief, Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the Lawfare blog's top editor, argue that, based in the language of the indictments and the legal precedents behind them, the "conspiracy to defraud the government" charge provides the Mueller team with significant flexibility in trying to build a case against Mr. Trump and members of his 2016 campaign.

Yeah, at this point the noose must be so tight that it is starting to cut off Trump's circulation. 

Roy Moore files legal complaint to prevent Doug Jones from being sworn in as Alabama's newest Senator, citing already debunked allegations of election fraud.

I don't understand math.

Courtesy of WaPo: 

Roy Moore, the Republican nominee who lost Alabama’s closely watched Senate race this month, has filed a last-minute legal complaint alleging “election fraud” and asking the state not to confirm the victory of Democrat Doug Jones. 

In the complaint filed in state court, Moore’s campaign argues that Alabama “will suffer irreparable harm if the election results are certified without preserving and investigating all the evidence of potential fraud.” It cites rumors of election fraud that have already been investigated and refuted by the Alabama secretary of state, argues that high Democratic turnout in key areas was statistically unlikely, and reports that Moore himself has taken a polygraph test — an attempt to disprove allegations that he made unwanted sexual advances on teenagers when he was in his 30s. 

Moore’s lawyers filed the complaint at 10:33 p.m. Wednesday night and announced it to reporters less than two hours later. At 1 p.m. Thursday, Alabama’s election officials — all Republicans — are scheduled to certify the election. Early Thursday morning, they gave no indication that they would delay that process. In Washington, leaders of both parties expect Jones to take his oath of office when the Senate returns next month.

Unfortunately for Moore and his alternative reality living supporters the Alabama Secretary of State says there are no plans to alter the will of the people.

Courtesy CNN:

Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill confirmed Thursday morning that Democrat Doug Jones will be certified the winner of the Alabama special Senate election despite Republican Roy Moore's refusal to concede and request for a new election. 

"Will this affect anything?" Merrill said on CNN's "New Day," referring to Moore's challenge. "The short answer to that is no." 

Merrill said he would meet Thursday afternoon with Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey and the state Attorney General Steve Marshall to certify Jones' win, and that Jones would indeed be sworn in when the Senate returns in January. 

"We will sign the documents certifying him as the senator for the state of Alabama," Merrill said. "He will be sworn in by Vice President Pence on January 3 when the Senate returns."

This is something that I never thought I would say but in the case of Roy Moore, being a pedophile may not have been his worst personality trait.

This guy is a straight up asshole through and through.

The Senate really dodged the bullet on this one.

I cannot imagine that this douchebag works and plays well with others.

Update: It looks like a judge just rejected Moore's challenge, and Jones is about to be certified as the new Alabama Senator. 

Update 2: Doug Jones was just now certified as the winner of this election.

So now pedophile Roy Moore can just jump on that poor horse of his and ride off into the sunset. 

Assuming that horse does not throw him off onto his ass of course.

Rep. Adam Schiff says that we know that the Russians offered help, the Trump campaign accepted that help, and Donald Trump made full use of that help.

Here is what we know:

The Russians offered help.
The Campaign accepted help.
The Russians gave help.
The President made full use of that help.

That's pretty damning. pic.twitter.com/kRo9NrdQq4

— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) December 10, 2017

Courtesy of the New York Post:  

The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said the evidence mounting in the Russia probe against President Trump’s campaign is “damning.” “We do know this,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” 

“The Russians offered help. The campaign accepted help. The Russians gave help. And the president made full use of that help. And that’s pretty damning, whether it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of conspiracy or not.”

I think most of us have realized this awhile ago, but to have the top Democrat on the house Intelligence Committee, which is currently investigating all of this, say it out loud is still pretty huge. 

Now we just need that top Republican in that committee agree and we are essentially off to the races.

My hope is that the 2018 mid term election will be a bloodbath for the GOP, and that we send so many new Democrats to Washington that there will be no choice but to proceed with impeachment proceedings.

If I have one Christmas wish, that would be it.

Was the FBI's interference in this election a bigger scandal than Watergate?

Rank-and-file FBI investigators on the Clinton case seem to have said, "If we can't indict her, we'll deny her the presidency." So they did.

— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) December 14, 2016

So the columnist whose tweet is posted above wrote a rather long and expansive examination into what exactly the FBI did to interfere in the 2016 election.

You can read the entire thing here, but for the purposes of this post I will concentrate on the twelve most important bullet points:

(1) Abedin told people after the discovery that “she [was] unsure how her emails could have ended up” on the computer the FBI found them on, suggesting that if she’d ever been contacted by the FBI in early October she could have helped them dialogue through the situation (as the idea that she had deliberately withheld these emails from the FBI never made any sense, given the Bureau’s unwavering insistence that Abedin had always been cooperative with them, and the pointlessness of Abedin risking federal Obstruction of Justice charges and federal prison time to hide emails that were—as we now know—not just without any evidentiary value but in fact duplicates of emails she had already turned over to FBI investigators); 

(2) consensus in the media and beyond, as summarized by The Washington Post, was that “an announcement from the FBI in early October, when the emails were discovered, might have been less politically damaging for Clinton than one coming less than two weeks before the Nov. 8 election,” a fact no one in the FBI could have failed to appreciate, given its obviousness (even notwithstanding the agents’ enormous, day-to-day professional investment in the situation); 

(3) a report in The New York Times indicated that, during the more than three weeks the Weiner investigators kept their discovery from Director Comey, they nevertheless shared their new information with the ”tremendously angry” (see #6, below) rank-and-file FBI investigators from the Clinton email-server case (the New York Times having reported on October 30th that the discovery of “new” Abedin emails in early October “prompted a renewed interest among agents who had investigated Mrs. Clinton for her use of a private email server as Secretary of State” [emphasis supplied]); 

(4) after the late-October revelation that the FBI had found new emails on Weiner’s computer on October 3rd, rank-and-file FBI agents told the media that “there was no chance the email review could be completed before Election Day” (thus ensuring it would disrupt the Clinton campaign through the casting of all ballots, early and in-person), only to be overruled by Director Comey within 24 hours, with Comey decreeing that the relevance of the new emails would be determined by Election Day (as it ultimately was, after many millions of Americans had voted early, and before many more millions could hear about the second, exculpatory Comey letter; nevertheless, the stark disparity between the rank-and-file’s comments to the media and Comey’s comments remains unexplained); 

(5) a member of Trump’s inner circle, Rudy Giuliani, confessed on the Lars Larson radio program that current FBI agents working on the Clinton investigation had illegally leaked information to him about the Abedin emails before it became public and before Director Comey had been told of the emails, and, moreover, were intending to leak this information—if they were unable to get Comey to do it via the implicit threat of a leak—as an (in Giuliani’s words) pro-Trump “October Surprise,” thereby establishing a political motive among a faction of the FBI in the timing and dissemination of information about the emails (”Darn right I heard about it,” said Giuliani, “[and] I can’t even repeat the language I heard,” referring with this latter remark to the agents’ anger at not being able to indict Hillary Clinton for multiple federal felonies in July of 2016; concurrently, Jim Kallstrom, who headed the New York field office of the FBI in the 1990s, also admitted to Fox News to receiving leaks about the Clinton investigation from current FBI agents working on the case); 

(6) Giuliani further disclosed that a faction of rank-and-file FBI agents within the New York field office felt “tremendous anger” toward both Director Comey, Hillary Clinton (the subject of their investigation, who they believed should have been indicted in July), and “a pretty corrupt Obama Justice Department” (many of whose officials might have retained their posts if Clinton were to win election to the presidency), and we know from The Chicago Tribune that Comey wrote “the Comey Letter” only because he believed these same rogue FBI agents in New York were planning to leak the “new” evidence in the Weiner case (which leak would have violated numerous federal criminal statutes, and which plan to leak would already be regarded as a criminal conspiracy by law); 

(7) the Abedin emails turned out to have no evidentiary value, and indeed were in many instances duplicates of emails already held by the FBI, which fact Comey likely could have determined himself even from meta-data alone (had he been given the opportunity to do so during the first week of October); 

(8) Giuliani mysteriously took himself out of the running for any position within the Trump administration on the very same day (December 9th) that The Washington Post and The New York Times ran stories about Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election, thereby beginning a period of heavy scrutiny for both the FBI and CIA’s actions before and during the election, with the stated reason for Giuliani’s demurral from a once-certain Cabinet position being his potential conflicts of interest abroad (which conflicts are reportedly far fewer in number than those of either the President-elect or the President-elect’s nominee for Secretary of State, and occur in the context of an administration that has thus far expressed no concern at all about foreign business entanglements); 

(9) as reported by The Chicago Tribune, a Los Angeles attorney, E. Randol Schoenberg, is now asking a New York City judge to release, on Thursday, the search warrant the FBI sought for the Abedin emails on Weiner’s computer—with what probable cause to believe they contained evidence of criminal conduct one can, in view of the facts in this article, only begin to imagine—with Schoenberg’s stated purpose being to determine whether “someone in the Manhattan orbit of then-candidate Donald Trump may have provided a false lead to the FBI” regarding the Abedin emails (alternatively, as observed by The Gothamist, the search warrant could turn up “funny business by overly zealous conservative FBI agents”); 

(10) the lawsuit in New York was made necessary by the FBI’s inexplicable refusal to turn over its FOIA-eligible investigatory materials to Attorney Schoenberg in the 20-day window mandated by law, or even to respond to Schoenberg’s request at all, which refusal would have assured, absent Schoenberg’s lawsuit, that this information would remain under wraps prior to the Electoral College vote; 

(11) the judge in the New York lawsuit now says he may release the entirety of the search warrant prior to the meeting of the Electoral College on Monday, December 19th, acknowledging thereby the potential political relevance of the material; and 

(12) if the search warrant is in any way irregular, or the FBI’s redactions from it suspicious, this could confirm political collusion at the FBI and thereby increase the number of “Hamilton Electors” from their current reported 20 to the 38 needed to throw the 2016 presidential election to the House of Representatives—which temporary delay in Trump’s ascension to the presidency would allow ample time for investigations of both FBI collusion with the Trump campaign and multifaceted Russian interference with the presidential election.

There is actually a lot more in the post, but these points alone are more than enough to suggest, if not prove, that there was a definite conspiracy to deny Hillary Clinton the presidency.

Then add to that the Republican witch hunts over Benghazi and the private server, Russian hacking, and voting irregularities, and there simply is no longer any doubt.

In my opinion Watergate was child's play compared to this, and what is even more troubling is that it is about to be swept under the rug by a media that is desperate to maintain access to the new president at the expense of reporting the most egregious attack on our democracy perhaps in our entire 240 year history.

Former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and his wife found guilty of multiple charges. Another GOP star bites the dust.

Courtesy of CBS News: 

Former Gov. Bob McDonnell, R-Va., and his wife, Maureen, have been found guilty on multiple counts of conspiracy, corruption and bribery. 

Bob McDonnell was found guilty on 11 different counts relating to the conspiracy charges. Maureen McDonnell was found guilty on eight of the 11 conspiracy charges as well as one charge of obstruction of official proceeding that occurred during the grand jury investigation. 

The jury reached the verdict after three days of deliberations. There was loud sobbing in the courtroom as the counts were read. 

Sentencing has been set for Jan. 6, according to news reports. The couple could face years of jail time.

Yeah I bet there was sobbing. 

I thought McDonnell staged one of the most cowardly defenses I have ever seen, where he essentially blamed everything on his wife and made sure they were never seen arriving or leaving the courthouse together.

I am not saying that his wife was without fault, but as the Governor HE is the one that was supposed to maintain the ethical standards.

Not only that but McDonnell was offered a plea deal that would have seen him convicted of only one of the charges against, him, and not the corruption one either, and allowed his wife to avoid any jail time at all, and he refused to take it. 

You may remember that McDonnell, also known as Governor Ultrasound, was once touted as a possible Republican presidential candidate in 2016.

Instead it looks like he might be spending some time behind bars where his prison husband can treat him just as shabbily as he treated his own wife.

Now let's see if we get a similar happy ending from the Rick Perry indictments. 

Vice Chairman of the Mississippi Tea Party, and one of the Chris McDaniel supporters connected to the nursing home scandal involving Thad Cochran's wife, found dead of an apparent suicide.

Courtesy of The Clarion-Ledger:

Sources have confirmed that attorney Mark Mayfield has committed suicide. 

Mayfield, vice chairman of the Mississippi Tea Party, and is one of the three men charged with conspiring with Clayton Kelly to photograph U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran's bedridden wife in her nursing home and create a political video against Cochran. 

Mark Mayfield of Ridgeland, an attorney and state and local tea party leader, was arrested last month along with Richard Sager, a Laurel elementary school P.E. teacher and high school soccer coach. Police said they also charged John Beachman Mary of Hattiesburg, but he was not taken into custody because of "extensive medical conditions." All face felony conspiracy charges. Sager also was charged with felony tampering with evidence, and Mary faces two conspiracy counts.

Damn this McDaniel guy is like a magnet for negative karma.

Or is it simply Karma, as there are some lingering questions as to whether or not this is indeed a suicide. Not that I am accusing anybody of anything, I am simply saying that this is a rather convenient death for some people.

I wonder if this will convince McDaniel to finally admit defeat or, with one less person connecting him to the nursery home break in, will convince him that he is untouchable?

Boy that Sarah Palin sure can pick'em!

Benghazi hoax falls apart on Fox and Friends as Geraldo Rivera refuses to promote the conspiracy.

Courtesy of Media Matters:  

RIVERA: Admiral Mike Mullen, appointed by President Bush, says there was no military asset available. I have investigated this from the Air Force assets in Aviano to the special forces in Tripoli and in Italy and in other places. Whatever was available in our fleet resources, AFRICOM, there was no forces that could have intervened. There was no gunship available as the myth suggested. There was no 'stand down order' given by concentrating on the -- and the military is not the SWAT team. They're not the fire department. 

If the jets Aviano had scrambled, they would have had to jettison their tanks at night, going over to a situation that they could have easily been taken down by a handheld RPG. To what end? We didn't have a target. It could would have been mounted, that mission was a suicide mission, it could not have happened.

I am not typically a fan of Rivera's but I think it is admirable that he refuses to buy into this scandal when all of the evidence proves that there is no there there.

In response to the New York Times calling BS on Right Wing conspiracy theories on Benghazi, they have been driven even further around the bend.

Courtesy of MSNBC:  

The New York Times published a comprehensive report over the weekend on last year’s attack in Benghazi, and it’s arguably the most detailed account any major news organization has completed on what transpired in Libya in September 2012. 

The report also appears to have driven some Republicans bonkers. 

GOP conspiracy theories surrounding Benghazi have long been something of a sideshow – after multiple, independent investigations, none of the far-right allegations have been substantiated in the slightest. But the NYT’s account discredited the far-right theories even more thoroughly, effectively ending the debate, such as it was. 

That said, watching the concerted effort to defend the conspiracy theory with an even more elaborate conspiracy theory is rather alarming. 

Charles Krauthammer asserted Monday that the New York Times was driven to conduct a months-long investigation into the deadly attack in Benghazi, Libya solely to give political cover to Hillary Clinton and her fellow Democrats – a year after the influential conservative bemoaned the lack of media coverage on the attack. 

Krauthammer was backing a baseless claim floated by Reps. Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA). Westmoreland accused the Times of “laying the groundwork” for a Clinton presidential bid, while Rogers said he found the timing of the report “odd.” 

The Republican pundit believes it’s “quite obvious” that the New York Times “invested all the effort and time in this and put it on the front page is precisely a way to protect the Democrats, to deflect the issue, to protect Hillary, who was exposed on this issue as almost no issue in her tenure in the administration. It is obviously a political move.” 

Noting that Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal explained how baseless the allegations against the paper really are, Krauthammer added that Rosenthal “being defensive” only bolsters the new conspiracy further. 

It’s one thing for conservative activists to desperately search for new ways to keep their rallying cry alive, but for high-profile Republican lawmakers and pundits to embrace loony-tunes ideas without shame or embarrassment is unsettling.

You know it would be unsettling if it weren't all too predictable. 

The Right was really convinced that they could use Benghazi against Hillary in 2016. Having it explode in their faces is like going all in on a hand of poker only to learn that the guy on your left is holding a full house.

Without Benghazi they really do not have anything to hang onto.

Therefore it is not surprising that they are refusing to let go.

If other news agencies are reporting there is no scandal they are covering for the administration. If people on the ground report that things did not happen the way Fox News has reported it did, they are lying. And if others claim there is no evidence of al-Qaeda involvement it is becasue they using the definition of al-Qaeda too narrowly.

A couple of years ago I might have been unsettled by Right Wing's inability to recognize that a conspiracy lacked credibility, but those days are long gone.

Today it is just par for the course. And to be honest I would be surprised if they WEREN'T working so hard to breathe fresh life into Benghazi. 

Correspondence between George W. Bush and Tony Blair during run up to Iraq war may be declassified.

Courtesy of RT:  

Tony Blair and George Bush exchanged voluminous correspondence prior to the start of military operations in Iraq. Now, the UK is moving to declassify details of the talks for an inquiry into Britain’s involvement in the conflict, British media reported. 

The release, set for the upcoming year, is expected to include more than 100 documents, described as a collection of notes, records of 200 minutes of ministerial level talks, telephone conversations and private meetings between the British prime minister and American president, The Independent reported. 

This will give the green light for the Chilcot Iraq Inquiry to publish an account of the conflict, where much attention will be given to decisions made by then Prime Minister Tony Blair. Indeed, the files could play a major part in determining Blair’s historical legacy, which critics say has been stained by the Iraq War. 

Blair has been criticized for failing to challenge then-US President George W. Bush on Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, specifically chemical and biological weapons, which a Joint Intelligence Committee report said in September 2002 “could be ready for firing in 45 minutes.” 

The former Labour leader said he worked to restrain the Bush administration’s seeming determination for military involvement in Iraq, even as UN weapons inspectors on the ground failed to discover any chemical or biological stockpiles. 

A senior government official predicted the results of the inquiry will not do Blair any favors: "In the new year it seems the Chilcot inquiry is going to be published. Everyone will be assuming: bad hair day for Tony Blair and Jack Straw." Straw served as Blair’s secretary of state.

All I can say is, if they do NOT redact the most damaging portions,  this would be a great gift to those of us who know that the administration lied about the reasons for the war, and bullied Blair into following them into the abyss.

It might also give the Right Wing an opportunity to see what REAL treason looks like so that they can see the damn difference from now on!

New Birther conspiracy theory just in time for Christmas, apparently the Kenyan Muslim's two daughters are aliens, or something like that.

This from the totally not insane website Fellowship of the Minds:  

I got an email this morning from FOTM reader Dave McMullen, asking why there aren’t baby pictures of Obama’s two daughters, Malia and Sasha. 

Wikipedia says “Barack and Michelle Obama have two daughters: Malia Ann, born on July 4, 1998, and Natasha (known as Sasha), born on June 10, 2001.“ 

So I did a Google Image search for Obama’s daughters. I couldn’t find any baby pics of Malia or Sasha; neither could Dave.

Holy crap on a cracker! There are NO baby pictures of Sasha and Malia on the interwebs? How is such a thing even possible?

Hmm, well not so fast because the soiree defecator over at Freakout Nation did his own Google search, and it turns out he actually knows how to use Google.

Bummer! And they had such a good conspiracy going there for a few minutes.

Frustrated that not enough people are paying attention to her Sarah Palin projects her worst personality traits onto the President while trolling for conspiracy theorists.

Okay so just a few hours ago Palin apparently decided go all in with conspiracy theorists who now seem to make up the base of the Tea Party movement, and posted this on her Facebook page:  

Whether accurate or not, for some reason I found this hilarious! Am I out of bounds for cracking up when I saw this take on a nauseated Obama fan, her absentminded pal, and our President's heroics this week? If so, penance paying I'll accept. (Palin puts a Smiley Face here, but I don't allow that kind of crap on this blog.) With the Obama White House’s total lack of transparency, it’s no wonder that some will ask whether they staged even a fainting lady in the Rose Garden. What was once a major leap in logic has become a single step because President Obama has lied so often and so blatantly ("If you like your health care plan, you can keep your plan" comes to mind!).

She then links to this batshit crazy article over at the Weekly Standard, that scrutinizes the moment that Karmel Allison almost fainted behind the President while he was giving his speech about the Affordable Care website problems.

I read through the post, by woman calling herself "Patriot Lady," and found that virtually ALL of her "discoveries of fraud" were easily explained if one applied logic. In fact upon repeated viewings it seems even more farfetched to jump to the conclusion that it is fake. (You can also see an interview with the young woman here and judge for yourself.)

But THAT doesn't stop Palin from suggesting that since the President is SO untrustworthy that it is not out of the realm of possibilities that the staged this. (Yes, HE'S the untrustworthy one.)

However I could not help notice that this comes right after many of the people visiting here bought into that Daily Currant parody that suggested that Palin believed that Jesus Christ had celebrated Easter. Part of the explanation for why reasonable people might believe such a crazy thing about Sarah Palin is that she has a history of making incredibly stupid remarks, and is famous for getting facts wrong about historical events (Think Paul Revere's ride.)

Let's face it this is clearly an example of blatant projection on Palin's part. Obviously there are conspiracies about her that are based on nothing more than very active imaginations and a deep seated disdain for the nasty bitch.

However there are also numerous examples of bizarre things that were proven to be true, such as she faked supporting letters to the editor, that she hijacked polls to make herself seem more popular, that she faked a pregnancy, that she constantly tells lies about her past and her family, and on and on and on. (Feel free to add your own to this list.)

However the conspiracy theories about the President, he was not born in this country, he is a homosexual, he is a secret Muslim, he is killing journalists, he is the Antichrist trying to destroy the country, are all based almost solely on absolutely nothing. And some of them are so crazy that they speak to a derangement that I am not sure we have every seen in this country before. (MSNBC just did a story about where these conspiracy theorists get their "facts" that is definitely worth a read.)

And the same is true of the fainting lady conspiracy.

That being said I do find it more than a little telling that Palin is now working the Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, and World Net Daily side of the fence. You know the place where the truly unhinged go to get their news.

But hey, I guess you go where your audience is, don't you?

Rachel Maddow does an amazing job of laying out the various Right Wing conspiracy theories and how Benghazi fits right in with them.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I swear NOBODY does a better job with this kind of thing than Rachel Maddow.

Her research abilities and ability to lay the facts out so that they are easy to understand and absorb is second to none.

Essentially her point, and one that has been made here and other places as well, is that the Republican party is like a mental hospital where the inmates have now taken over the facility. And in my opinion, the GOP either needs to regain control, or burn the place down and start all over.

Senate Intelligence Chair, Senator Feinstein, cuts the legs out from under Right Wing conspiracy that Ambassador Rice misrepresented data about 9-11 attack in Benghazi.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Senate Intelligence Committee Chair, Dianne Feinstein, on the Republican charge that Susan Rice lied to the American people about terrorist attack in Benghazi on White House orders: "With the allegation that the White House changed those talking points, that is false. There is only one thing that was changed, and I have checked into this, I believe it to be absolute fact, and that was the word "consulate" was changed to "mission." That was the only change that anyone in the White House made. And I have checked this out.'

David Gregory: "Do you believe that the President, or anybody serving the President, deliberately misled the American people about the true nature o this attack?"

Feinstein: "No!"

Gregory: "Absolutely not Senator?"

Feinstein: "That is correct."

That essentially should be the end of this entire conversation. I don't think that ANY Republican is ready to call Senator Feinstien a liar, and if she says there was no attempt at a cover up that should be the end of that.

Of course it won't be, because the GOP is desperate to find SOMETHING to damage Obama's presidency. However the fact that they have taken this incident and blown it so completely out of proportion, even going so far as to refer to it as "bigger than Watergate," is an indication that they have NOTHING to work with in damaging the President's credibility or that of his administration.

By the way this investigation is far from over, and I think that there will indeed be some heads that roll. However, as much as the Right Wing might want to hope otherwise, I think it is clear that the heads of President Obama and of Ambassador Rice will stay firmly on their shoulders

How the Republicans purposefully sabotaged the Recovery.

Click here for more about this book,.

Courtesy of Foreign Policy:  

Imagine, for a moment, how difficult it would have been to land a man on the moon if half of the U.S. Congress had believed that the sun revolved around the earth. Or consider how the War in the Pacific might have progressed if half of Congress had still thought the world was flat. Or whether polio would have been eradicated if half of Congress insisted that the best cure was bleeding using leeches. Unfortunately, this was the situation the United States in January 2009, when Barack Obama assumed the presidency. The nation was trying to climb out of the deepest economic hole since the Great Depression, but the Republican Party had about as scientific an approach to the economy as medieval alchemists did to the periodic table. 

Sometimes, mistaken ideas can be harmless or even humorous. But in a crisis, they can be downright dangerous. By the time Obama took office, Lehman Brothers had failed, and the Treasury was already trying to prop up banks and other financial institutions to prevent a complete collapse of the economy. In addition, the nation had undergone a tremendous fiscal transformation. Back in 2000, the United States had expected to rack up more than $4 trillion in budgetary surpluses over the coming eight years, but the Bush administration enacted tax cuts that brought the tax burden for upper-income Americans down to the lowest levels since the 1940s. These cuts, combined with two expensive wars and a short recession, sent the nation into deep deficits. The new president faced an enormous task to revive the economy -- one that he could not complete without Congress's help. Together, they would have to protect Americans from a prolonged economic slump while attempting to chart a course toward a more fiscally responsible future. 

Not everyone in Congress was in a mood to cooperate. Stung by their electoral defeats and facing Democratic domination of both houses, the Republicans did everything they could to slow the new president's agenda, from filibusters and procedural votes to delayed appointments and partisan bickering. Clearly, the election campaigns of 2010 and 2012 had already begun, and Republicans were determined to stop the new president from keeping his promises. But in the early days of the financial crisis that began in September 2008, the Republicans knew that they had to seem like they were doing something about the economy, too. 

So when Obama cast himself as a compromiser ready to temper the legislative proposals of the Democrats in Congress, the Republicans got whatever they could from him -- often while Obama's supporters cried foul -- and made sure to water down his proposals as well. It started with the first stimulus package. In January 2009, Obama announced his proposal for a combination of tax cuts and new spending worth $825 billion over the coming decade, including more than half a trillion dollars in the first two years. By this point, the value of the economy's annual output of goods and services had already shrunk by about five percent, adjusted for changes in prices, since its peak in the fourth quarter of 2007. This was a big hole to fill, easily worth half a trillion dollars a year. The stimulus wouldn't replace all that had been lost, but it might prevent a bad situation from lasting longer and getting worse. 

There is much more at the link, and I encourage you to read it. 

If you are anything like me, by the end you will be spitting nails and ready to punch the next Republican politician you see right in the face.

The thing that pisses me off (Almost as much as how traitorous these assholes are, and how ready they were to destroy the economy in order to retain political power.), is that they keep using the fact that Obama did not keep his promise to fix the economy against him in both Republican surrogate talking points and Romney political ads..

They have done EVERYTHING in their power to stop him while complaining to the American people that he has not repaired the economic damage, that THEIR last president caused, fast enough!

They also accuse him of being "the most partisan President in years" when in fact Obama did everything but offer to shine their shoes and drive their kids to school in order to strike a compromise in the early negotiations. They played him for a fool because he expected them to actually care about the country. I know, what an idiot!

If President Obama has a major fault it is that he trusted too much.

Not any more. Now he knows better. 

The only question is, do the America people know better?

Phone hacking whistleblower found dead. Uh oh, I don't like where this is going!

Courtesy of the Guardian:

Sean Hoare, the former News of the World showbiz reporter who was the first named journalist to allege Andy Coulson was aware of phone hacking by his staff, has been found dead, the Guardian has learned.

Hoare, who worked on the Sun and the News of the World with Coulson before being dismissed for drink and drugs problems, is said to have been found dead at his Watford home.

Hertfordshire police would not confirm his identity, but the force said in a statement: "At 10.40am today [Monday 18 July] police were called to Langley Road, Watford, following the concerns for the welfare of a man who lives at an address on the street. Upon police and ambulance arrival at a property, the body of a man was found. The man was pronounced dead at the scene shortly after.

"The death is currently being treated as unexplained, but not thought to be suspicious. Police investigations into this incident are ongoing."

Okay I am going to try not to be too conspiratorial here but...oh fuck it, this simply CANNOT be a coincidence!


They need to get somebody besides the local police involved in this investigation immediately, and make damn sure that any other journalitst involved in this investigation, and their sources, are provided protection.

I realize that it is possible that this guy took his own life, or succumbed to "natural causes," but at this point I think those are the LEAST likely scenarios.

How Teabaggers see President Obama's long form birth certificate.

This is how a strong leader addresses a distracting conspiracy theory that simply will NOT die. Update!

And here is the birth certificate, courtesy of Andrew Sullivan, for all of you Birthers who simply must see it with your own eyes.

Well that is that!  Next?

Update: Fox News is going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the harsh light of reality.

And yet all Sarah Palin has to do is SAY she gave birth to her son on April 18, 2008, and not ONE mainstream journalist will dare to even express concern that she might not be telling the truth.  So WHO is it that does not get fair treatment from the press?

Apparently the memories of some reporters are a tricky thing. Especially when it comes to Sarah Palin's last "pregnancy."

I have to assume that all of you are just about as dizzy as I am from all of this new information being offered up by reporters suddenly coming out of the woodwork that they "knew" all along that Palin was pregnant.

First we had ADN reporter Julia O'Malley suddenly coming out with the information that. "Palin also ran all the time at the gym in Juneau. People I know saw her on the treadmill sweating in workout clothes. She had a belly. I repeat: she had a real pregnant belly. Are you going to tell me she was wearing a prosthetic abdomen on the treadmill?"  I am not calling anybody a liar, but I had NEVER heard a report of that kind of observation since I first started asking questions back in the fall of 2008. 

Since that rather interesting revelation Justin Elliot has shaken loose a few other reporters who had pregnancy confirming stories of their own, such as Steven Quinn, Erika Bolstad, and Wesley Loy. (There are other reporters named, but Elliott simply used old articles they wrote back in 2008.  Nothing new to address there.)

Now I have already addressed what I think of Steve Quinn's believability, and some of the other reporters named, but I want to return to Wesley Loy for a moment.

Wesley Loy, as many of you know, originally reported the response of Alaskans to the news the governor was pregnant as follows:

That the pregnancy is so advanced astonished all who heard the news. The governor, a runner who's always been trim, simply doesn't look pregnant.

Even close members of her staff said they only learned this week their boss was expecting.

Obviously it was reports like that one, as well as Michael Carey's casual reference to the "rumor" that Palin faked her pregnancy (And of course the troubling "pregnancy" pictures), that first piqued the interest of those of us who started to question the official birth story.

Now suddenly yesterday Wesley Loy comes out with the revelation, also published in Salon, that he eventually became convinced that Palin WAS pregnant.

The first question to ask is WHY did he wait so long to say anything.  The second is how did Salon get him to go on the record with this previously unreported information when others have failed to do so? (Myself included.) And the third question is did what he reported really take place the way he reported it, and if it did was it actually enough to convince him she that was telling the truth?

Now I am loathe to call anybody a liar. I do not know Mr. Loy, and up until last night had no reason to question his assertion that the story he told about Palin showing him her "(covered) baby bump" really DID assure him that she was pregnant.

But then I had a telephone conversation with Professor Scharlott.

I called him essentially to see how he was  faring with the fact that he now found himself in the eye of a media hurricane. (He is faring well, just so you know.) But then the conversation turned to Wesley Loy.

The Professor said that he had tried in vain to contact Mr. Loy for his research paper, after being directed to do so by reporter Gregg Erickson who was writing for the Alaska Budget Report down in Juneau. The Professor failed to receive a response from Mr. Loy, however he kindly agreed to let me share his conversation with Mr. Erickson here with you.

This is the e-mail that Professor Scharlott sent way back in September of 2008.

Hi,

Is it true the Anchorage Daily News "debunked" the idea that Trig is not Sarah Palin's baby, as I read in a blog? I am mystified why Palin did not produce documentary evidence (e.g. birth certificate) to show her maternity instead of responding to rumors by revealing Bristol's (second?) pregnancy, which in itself does not prove anything if you simply stipulate that she may be less than five months pregnant. Also, I can find no confirmatory statements from attending medical personnel such as her doctor or anyone at the hospital that Sarah is the mother.

I am a journalism professor (so I am highly skeptical by training) and the whole thing sounds fishy. It's almost as if there is an agreement among our colleagues in journalism to let the Palins spread a false version of who Trig's mother is out of a desire to help protect the reputation of Bristol -- which arguably would have been a good thing to do before Palin outed her daughter's current pregnancy and started making political hay out of her "choice" to have a Down syndrome baby.

I am not trying, by the way, to break a news story here -- I stopped writing for newspapers a long time ago. But I am planning to investigate how reporters have reacted to the Palin phenomenon and probably report my findings at an academic conference down the road.

If I am on the wrong track here re Trig's maternity, just let me know. If there is more going on than meets the eye, maybe it would be possible for me to call you for (if need be) an off-the-record chat.

Thanks,
Brad Scharlott
Associate Professor
Northern Kentucky University

Here is Mr. Erickson's response:

Dear Brad:

Anchorage Daily News reporter Wesley Loy investigated the idea that Trig is not Sarah Palin's baby. I've worked with (and against Loy) for years. He's an astute, indefatigable and ruthless reporter.

During this summer's special legislative session Loy, I, and my wife occupied three adjoining offices near the Capitol. We frequently discussed stories we were reporting for Judy's newsletter, my columns, and the stories he was was working. We especially enjoyed Wesley's accounts of his pursuit the "Grandma Governor fakes birth" story.

As far as I know nothing was ever published on "Grandma," but he might have posted something on ADN's "Alaska Politics" blog or elsewhere that I didn't see.

I suggest you address your questions to him a wloy@adn.com.

Good luck,
Gregg Erickson

Now here is my question.

If Wesley Loy had been convinced that Palin WAS in fact Trig's birth mother after his observation of her cloth covered "baby bump," in the spring, why did he not simply tell Erickson about what he had seen, and that in his mind the question had been resolved to his satisfaction? 

And if he HAD told Erickson this, why would Erickson refer to the story as the "Grandma Governor fakes birth" story? 

Not to mention the fact that it sounds like these reporters were discussing stories they were CURRENTLY working on that summer of 2008, NOT stories they had covered in the past.  So why would Loy bring them up unless this was still an ongoing investigation?

I am sorry, but rather than putting this story to rest, Loy's miraculously reconstructed memory actually raises many more questions.  Questions that I personally find very troubling. Very troubling indeed.

The Birth of Birtherism.

From Politico:

The original smear against Obama was that he was a crypto-Muslim, floated in 2004 by perennial Illinois political candidate and serial litigant Andy Martin. Other related versions of this theory alleged that Obama was educated in an Indonesian “madrassa” or steeped in Islamist ideology from a young age, and the theories began to spread virally after Obama appeared on the national stage – to the casual observer, from nowhere – with his early 2007 presidential campaign announcement.
Then, as Obama marched toward the presidency, a new suggestion emerged: That he was not eligible to serve. (See: Birther debate alive across U.S.)

That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship.

“Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy. She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth,” asserted one chain email that surfaced on the urban legend site Snopes.com in April 2008.

Another early version of the theory, reported by the Chicago Tribune in June 2008, depended on a specious legal theory that was, for a time, the heart of the argument: that Obama was born in Hawaii but had a Kenyan father, and his mother was only 18 years old. Therefore, under existing immigration law, he was not eligible for automatic citizenship upon birth — a claim that depended on an understandable, but incorrect, reading of immigration law. Other theories suggested that Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when he moved to Indonesia or visited Pakistan in violation of a supposed State Department ban as a young man. (There was no such ban.)

I hate it that people keep comparing our extremely valid questions about Sarah Palin's clearly fake pregnancy, to this ridiculous attempt to invalidate the election of our President, by people who simply cannot face the fact that we now have an African American in the White House.

They are simply NOT comparable issues.

Of course perhaps the biggest difference between the two topics, besides the fact that Obama provided HIS birth certificate of course, is that the press is ALLOWED to report on the birther issue, but (until very recently) babygate has been considered verboten!

Sarah Palin faking her fifth child's birth "is NOT a conspiracy."

Intrigued? Then read what Andrew Sullivan posted yesterday from reader, and friend of this blog, "Rationalist."

Your reader makes as compelling a case as I've seen for Palin actually having been pregnant, and barring other evidence I'd be inclined to think s/he is right. The kicker seems to be the conspiracy element. As with any conspiracy, one must ask how could people possibly keep quiet all this time?

Well, because it's not a conspiracy. In my view, it's just a sad, time-tested story of a very dysfunctional family, writ large.

If you really think about it, only three or four people would really have to know. If you'll indulge me a few paragraphs to offer a counter-theory, I'd be grateful.

Sarah Palin’s kids were typical Wasilla teenagers, partying a lot, more unsupervised than most because Palin was so busy and Todd was gone a lot. The Palin household was not close. Frank Bailey reported Palin telling him "Todd and I aren't like other couples. We don't talk." But the kids, like many kids in alcoholic or abusive families, were well trained to make everything look perfect to outsiders. This dynamic was enhanced by the Palin's celebrity and power and the fact that by all accounts Palin is secretive to an extreme, even to her parents. If Bristol is indeed the mother of Trig (which is by no means certain), she got pregnant when she was sixteen, but didn’t tell anyone until it was too late for an abortion, so the plan was to keep the pregnancy secret and adopt the baby out.

Palin’s ob-gyn, Cathy Baldwin-Johnson, founded The Children’s Place in Alaska for victims of sexual assault and molestation, and specializes in helping teenagers in trouble. In early 2008, Palin’s name was out as a potential VP nominee, so the national spotlight was already beginning to hit – Vogue magazine did a photo essay about her and Adam Brickley's "Draft Sarah Palin" website was getting thousands of page views. Really bad timing for a pregnant teenage daughter.

Bristol was sent to live with her aunt halfway through her junior year, transferring from Juneau to West High School in Anchorage in the winter of 2007-2008. Then, according to the principal of West High, she left that school after a couple of months, theoretically to be home schooled. I suspect Bristol had Trig in late February, at home or possibly in Anchorage as an anonymous teenager - perhaps under the care of Dr. Baldwin-Johnson. But she was one of the small but real group of teenagers to give birth to a baby with Down Syndrome, which threw a wrench in the adoption plans.

Trig stayed in the hospital in Anchorage and Bristol came home. Palin began to see a political opportunity in having a baby with Down Syndrome. The Palins decided that Sarah and Todd would adopt the baby and raise him as theirs, but they couldn't let the public know Bristol had been pregnant. Maybe Sarah’s doctor did not know about her plans either. Palin began wearing scarves all the time in mid-February. McCain got the nomination on March 5, and the next day Sarah went for it and gave a press conference saying she was seven months pregnant. No one could believe it. Perhaps even, I suspect, Palin's doctor.

She was planning to announce the birth in the middle of April, the earliest she could conceivably have a healthy baby, and the latest Trig would be able to pass as a newborn. But she really wanted to give the high profile speech in Dallas. So she gave flew there and gave it. On April 17th, she called her parents early in the morning and told her dad her water had broken so she was coming back early. If Palin was ever actually at Mat-Su hospital that night, then Cathy Baldwin-Johnson would have arranged for privacy for her high profile patient (a scenario that numerous nurses have reported happens with regularity).

In any event, at noon the next day, Palin's parents were photographed by KTUU in the halls holding a very chubby pink baby ... a baby that, according to Going Rogue, was a month premature with a hole in his heart and jaundice. No one would ever have been the wiser, except that in an interview three days later a reporter asked Palin if her water had broken while she was in Texas. Palin tried to deflect the question, and the reporter (the only reporter, I might add, who has ever asked Palin a pointed question on this) said "Well, your dad said that and I saw him say it so that’s why I asked." And out came the story of the Wild Ride.

After that, the doctor said "It was not unreasonable for her to fly back" with a lawyer present and then has refused all interviews since. And Bristol got knocked up sometime before April 1st with Tripp, which turned out to be very convenient for Palin as "proof" Bristol couldn't be the mother of Trig.

So. As the Internet heats up with arguments and counter arguments, I hope this will reinforce the difference between the Palin story and every other conspiracy I can think of. It's not a conspiracy.

Nicely done.  As most of you know I don't engage in attempts to create plausible scenarios for why Palin faked her pregnancy, or whether or not Bristol was pregnant and gave birth before Tripp's delivery, or what might have happened to the baby that was Trig before the toddler we now know to be Trig was Trig.

It is not because I DON'T wonder about those things, because I do.  It is because if I write one of them out, people might start to believe it is factual and I don't want to steer anybody in the wrong direction.

Having said that I think Rationalist's scenario is pretty believable.  I might have made a few alterations if I had written it, but it is not a bad summation of what we know, and what are possibly the missing pieces of the puzzle.

I do have a couple of oddly shaped pieces of this babygate puzzle that I don't yet know what to do with, that I hope I will be able to fit in at some point in the future, but until then what is written above is as good of an explanation as any other I have seen put forward thus far.

And yes I agree that calling our questions about this pregnancy a "conspiracy theory" is completely ridiculous, and indicates that the person using that term has paid little, or no attention to all of the troubling inconsistencies in this bizarre little saga.