Beet L. Jooz

The Senate lowered the sales tax and reduced the budget without throwing it into chaos. A large majority of the House wants to do the same -- but their leaders are playing politics.

During her announcement that Miss America would no longer judge contestants on their looks and that “women of all sizes” would...

My three-year-old recently noticed “The Cat in the Hat” on her bookshelf, a book my parents saved from my own twentieth-century childhood, which I don’t think I’ve read since I was my daughter’s age. It has appealing rhymes and a story my daughter liked. (The cat is very mischievous!)

But reading the book as a parent aware of the times, I couldn’t help but think that this classic children’s book, which was published in 1957, would never be released now. Sensibilities have simply changed too much.

Yes, children still love hearing rhymes read aloud. However, the whole premise of the book is scandalous in 2018. To refresh your memory: A mother disappears for the day (to do what?), while her young children sit inside bored and wishing it weren’t raining (concerns about sedentary children came later). The Cat in the Hat then appears, seemingly out of nowhere (how did he get in?). He’s entertaining, but also seems to be a complete stranger (and the kids are amazingly copacetic about that).

I wondered if this reflected parenting styles changing with the decades. However, my mother and mother-in-law, both children of the ‘50s, say they were never left home alone like this at young ages. So, perhaps Dr. Seuss set the scene as more a matter of silliness, a kid’s version of what the mice do while the cat is away. But thinking of this as harmless fun — as it was likely intended — truly feels like visiting another era.

I can’t imagine a contemporary writer committing anything similar on paper. In the 21st century, there is no joking about leaving kids unattended for fear that someone will miss the joke and call Child Protective Services (CPS). While I’m sure CPS existed in the ‘50s, I don’t have the sense it was used as a cudgel against political opponents and other parents the way it is today.

Beyond that, there are simple issues of safety to consider. The cat manages to enter the house without knocking or ringing a doorbell. Did he find a spare key, or did the mother forget to lock the door? Perhaps we are meant to assume that Sally and her unnamed brother live in a low-crime neighborhood (and era), so we shouldn’t worry about that.

Still, shouldn’t the children be frightened by this uninvited creature, at least initially? There is no apparent fright, only delight. Perhaps that makes for a better, funnier story, especially for preschoolers.

That said, stranger danger has been preached to children at least since I was young. I was always taught not to open the door to strangers, and I wasn’t left home alone until I was older than Sally and her unnamed brother look. In our time, an 80-year-old man can’t say hello to a child in a supermarket without authorities being called.

Lastly, there is the matter of the fish. The pet fish is, of course, the closest thing Sally and her brother have to a babysitter. The fish advises them the cat shouldn’t be allowed in the house while their mother is out, before being disregarded. Now, the cat could theoretically have eaten the fish, as cats are wont to do, and he doesn’t. Either he’s too nice a cat, or perhaps he’s a vegetarian.

The cat does decide to have his own version of fun with the fish. He plays a game of what he calls “Up-up-up with a fish!” wherein he bounces the fish, still in its bowl, on the cat’s umbrella handle. The fish doesn’t enjoy this game in the least and complains while the cat continues to juggle him.

I couldn’t look at this without imagining this book coming out now. PETA or some similar group would protest, claiming the book teaches children to engage in animal cruelty. After all, the fish clearly opposes this game, participating without consent. In Dr. Seuss’ era, presumably this was not an issue, but it would be in ours.

All of this makes me think writing a memorable children’s book would be harder than it looks. Timeless lessons worth teaching children still exist, but there are also a lot of cultural landmines a writer now needs to avoid. Childhood has become serious business. I just hope our children still remember to laugh.

It might be time for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to revise its Russia-Trump collusion origin story again. First, they said the whole thing started with the Christopher Steele dossier. When that fell apart, the beginning became a random conversation between a Trump campaign staffer and a foreign diplomat. But an examination of the George Papadopolous explanation—that the FBI kicked into gear once it was told a Trump affiliate was trawling for hacked emails—shows that the public evidence doesn’t fit the bureau’s story.

The FBI has long maintained that it launched its investigation into the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016, upon learning that Trump foreign policy advisor Papadopoulos knew the Russians possessed “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. Following a December 31, 2017, New York Times article, the narrative then ran that Papadopoulos had told Australian diplomat Alexander Downer that “Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign.”

This Narrative Is Getting Fresh Eyes

In the last month, those covering Spygate have revisited that narrative, and after a careful re-reading of the Times article, noted it does not actually say that Papadopoulos told Downer that the Russians had Clinton’s emails. To the contrary, the article admits “how much Mr. Papadopoulos said that night at the Kensington Wine Rooms with the Australian, Alexander Downer, is unclear.”

Yet the Times asserted that when WikiLeaks began releasing the hacked Democratic National Committee emails in July, “Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts.. . .[And] [t]he hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired.”

Downer has since denied telling his higher-ups that Papadopoulos mentioned Clinton’s emails. In an interview with The Australian, as Chuck Ross recently highlighted in The Daily Caller, Downer said Papadopoulos merely told him the “Russians might use material that they have on Hillary Clinton in the lead-up to the election, which may be damaging.” Papadopoulos “didn’t say dirt; he said material that could be damaging to her.” Downer also stressed Papadopoulos “didn’t say what it was.”

But we don’t need to take Downer’s word on the matter. And we should have realized months ago that the FBI’s decision to open the investigation on the Trump campaign had nothing to do with Papadopoulos’s purportedly drunken reference to Clinton’s emails.

How? By reading the footnotes in the response memorandum Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) released to counter the memorandum House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (D-CA) had issued on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuse.

What the Footnotes Said

In his memo, Schiff notes that the “DOJ accurately informed the Court that the FBI initiated its counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016” based on information Papadopoulos had revealed. While the details of what Papadopoulos revealed (and to whom) remain redacted, unredacted footnote five states: “Papadopoulos’s October 5, 2017 guilty plea adds further texture to this initial tip, by clarifying that a Russian agent told Papadopoulos that ‘They [the Russians] have dirt on her’; ‘the Russians had emails of Clinton’; ‘they have thousands of emails.’”

Papadopoulos’s guilty plea came more than one year after the FBI initiated its counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign and, as Schiff put it, “adds further texture to this initial tip.” He means the tip that spawned the investigation of the Trump campaign did not reference Clinton’s emails.

So, what prompted the launch of operation Crossfire Hurricane? Papadopoulos merely stated that “Russians might use material that they have on Hillary Clinton in the lead-up to the election, which may be damaging.” That statement cannot possibly justify opening a counterintelligence investigation on a presidential campaign. Half the world expected that at the time. This is likely why The New York Times, relying on leaks from insiders, wordsmithed its story to create the false impression that Papadopoulos had bragged to Downer about hacked emails.

What Else Is In That Memo

Revisiting the Schiff memo reveals two additional points of note: The memo states “individuals linked to Russia” “took interest in Papadopoulos as a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser.” While Papadopoulos would later admit these facts in his Statement of Offense, how did the FBI know these facts on July 31, 2016 (or in October 2016, when the DOJ sought the initial FISA application for Carter Page)? The first FBI interview of Papadopoulos, according to court documents, occurred in January 2017.

The FBI might easily learn that Papadopoulos worked at the London Centre for International Law Practice with Joseph Mifsud, the professor with the Russia connections. Agents also could quickly discover Mifsud’s links to Russia. But how did the FBI know before October 2016 that Mifsud “took interest in Papadopoulos as a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser?”

Had the FBI obtained a court order to intercept Papadopoulos’ electronic communications before obtaining the FISA warrant to intercept Page’s communications in October 2016? On what basis—his mention that the Russians might have information damaging to Hillary? Or did the FBI have another source familiar with Mifsud’s interest in Papadopoulos? Mifsud himself?

Second, in footnote five, in referencing the Statement of Offense, Schiff refers to Mifsud as “a Russian agent.” But the Statement of Offense filed in Papadopoulos’s case never claims Mifsud was a Russian agent. Further, last week Lee Smith dismantled the narrative that Mifsud was a Russian agent, detailing evidence which, if anything, casts him as an asset to Western intelligence agencies. But which Western intelligence agency?

According to excerpts from their forthcoming book, “The Faking of Russia-Gate: The Papadopoulos Case,” Stephan Roh and Thierry Pastor claim they spoke with Mifsud after he went missing from their campus in Italy. The Atlantic recounted their claims:

“Roh and Pastor say that they last spoke to Mifsud by phone on January 13, 2018 …. Mifsud had gone into hiding, he told them, after ‘the head of the Italian secret services contacted the President of LINK Campus, Vincenzo Scotti,’ and recommended that Mifsud ‘disappear.’ Since then, Mifsud ‘has been requested to hide, not to communicate, and not to speak to the press,’ Roh and Pastor write. ‘He has been “put away” and threatened to stay quiet.’”

Who wants him to stay quiet?

The Supreme Court ruled Monday a Colorado baker does not have to make a wedding cake for a gay couple in Masterpiece Cake shop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The ruling seems like a big victory for religious freedom and free speech, but a closer read of the court’s opinion shows three takeaways from the ruling conservatives can’t afford to ignore.

First, let’s recap: Jack Phillips is a devout Christian and the owner of Masterpiece Cake shop in Lakewood, Colorado. In 2012, Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins, a gay couple, came to the shop to order a wedding cake. Phillips said that he would sell the couple a cake for a shower or any other baked goods in his shop, but he couldn’t make a wedding cake for the same-sex couple because of his religious-based opposition to same-sex marriage, which Colorado itself deemed illegal in 2012.

The couple filed a charge with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. The Commission ruled in the couple’s favor. But Jack argued that the commission’s order violated his constitutional rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Jack deemed that using his artistic skills to create a wedding cake is a form of speech. The case went through Colorado state courts which affirmed the Civil Rights Commission’s ruling and its enforcement order. Eventually the case landed in the Supreme Court, which reversed those rulings.

Now, here are the takeaways.

1. The Ruling Is Narrow, Which Could Spell Trouble Down The Road

While the ruling favors Phillips 7-2, the majority opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy is based on very narrow ground. The court’s majority found it is difficult to support the argument that the Civil Rights’ Commission’s order violated his free speech and free exercise of religion.

“The free speech aspect of this case is difficult, for few persons who have seen a beautiful wedding cake might have thought of its creation as an exercise of protected speech,” Kennedy wrote. The majority found the same difficulties arise in determining whether Phillips has a valid free exercise claim, because as a business owner his right to exercise religion might be “limited by generally applicable laws.”

Instead, the majority rests its ruling in favor of Phillips on the narrow ground that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was inconsistent with the state’s obligation to religious neutrality required by the Constitution.

The court gave several examples of the “impermissible hostility” Phillips received from the Civil Rights Commission. For instance, at a public hearing in 2014, one commissioner disparaged his religious beliefs: “Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust, whether it be — I mean, we — we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to — to use their religion to hurt others.”

The court found, “This sentiment is inappropriate for a commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law — a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.” Thus, “it is proper to hold that whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these, the Commission’s actions here violated the Free Exercise Clause; and its order must be set aside.”

I agree with the court that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission acted unfairly and not in a neutral way. But since this is the only ground the Supreme Court rests this case on, it leaves the door open for government agencies to require business owners to provide services for people or events they have religious objections to, as long as these agencies can show that they apply their anti-discrimination law fairly and neutrally. Should this happen, the ruling on Masterpiece is hardly a win.

2. If Only Justice Gorsuch’s Concurrences Were The Majority Opinion

While the majority ruled on a narrow ground, the two concurrences Justice Neil Gorsuch participated in went much further. He joined Justice Samuel Alito in writing a concurring opinion that supports the majority’s ruling. They went further than the majority, however, by calling out their most liberal colleagues, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor: “In the face of so much evidence suggesting hostility toward Mr. Phillips’s sincerely held religious beliefs, two of our colleagues have written separately to suggest that the Commission acted neutrally toward his faith when it treated him differently from the other bakers — or that it could have easily done so consistent with the First Amendment. But, respectfully, I do not see how we might rescue the Commission from its error.”

Gorsuch and Alito added: “The only reason the Commission seemed to supply for its discrimination was that it found Mr. Phillips’s religious beliefs ‘offensive.’ That kind of judgmental dismissal of a sincerely held religious belief is, of course, antithetical to the First Amendment and cannot begin to satisfy strict scrutiny … In this country, the place of secular officials isn’t to sit in judgment of religious beliefs, but only to protect their free exercise.”

While the majority found it difficult to support the claim on free speech, Gorsuch joined Justice Clarence Thomas to support the claim in another concurrence. The justices point out that although public-accommodations laws generally regulate conduct, particular applications of them can burden protected speech. In addition, certain conduct may qualify as speech because it is “intended to be communicative” and, “in context, would reasonably be understood by the viewer to be communicative.”

Based on that definition, both justices found that creating and designing custom wedding cakes is expressive. In addition, a wedding cake is more than a combination of milk, eggs and flour. The cake communicates a message that “a wedding has occurred, a marriage has begun, and the couple should be celebrated.” Thus they concluded that “the use of his artistic talents to create a well-recognized symbol that celebrates the beginning of a marriage clearly communicates a message.” Therefore, they find his refusal to bake the wedding cake for the same-sex couple is a form of protected free speech.

“States cannot punish protected speech because some group finds it offensive, hurtful, stigmatic, unreasonable, or undignified,” Gorsuch and Alito wrote.

Had the concurrences been the majority opinion, the win would stand on more solid ground, and the ruling would have served as a precedent for future cases.

3. Elections Matter

Phillips has every reason to celebrate this hard fought win, even if it is narrow. Many other small business owners, like the florists and photographers who are in similar situations to his have folded, but Phillips religious belief and his perseverance have kept him fighting for six years. Had he given up, besides baking, he would have had to spend time preparing “quarterly compliance reports,” documenting “the number of patrons denied service” and why, along with “a statement describing the remedial actions taken,” per the order by Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Phillips is also fortunate that his case reached the Supreme Court when a Republican occupies the White House and appointed a conservative justice to the Court. If anything, this case is an affirmation that elections matter and we need more justices like Gorsuch and Thomas who strictly interpret the Constitution based on its original intent. This case should motivate more Republicans to get out and vote this coming November.

While this case is a win for Phillips, it shouldn’t be viewed as a loss for the gay community. Contrary to some liberal talking points, the ruling didn’t legalize discrimination on religious grounds. As all justices recognized, “Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights.” The ruling of the Masterpiece case is only an affirmation that, “At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.”

The intelligence bureaucracies spied on the Donald Trump campaign: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants were granted because of a Hillary Clinton-funded and unverified document, national-security letters were issued to allow warrantless spying, and the unprecedented but not-illegal-per-se unmasking of Trump officials’ conversations with non-U.S. persons was shockingly routine.

Yet the news of a CIA-connected human source operating as far back as April or May of 2016 is about more than just spying. It is the latest example in what now looks to be a long line of attempted setups by the Clinton team, many times aided and abetted by our intelligence bureaucracies.

These events should anger any red blooded American who believes in representative democracy and the importance of the rule of law. Let’s review eight examples.

1. CIA And FBI ‘Human Intelligence’

We’ve just learned about Stefan Halper, a CIA-connected Cambridge professor who — working for the FBI — contacted Trump advisers Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, and Sam Clovis during the 2016 election, to investigate what they might know about suspicions of collusion with Russia. Former Trump campaign aide Michael Caputo has claimed that he was approached by an unknown second U.S. intelligence community asset in early May of 2016.

The FBI says that the Russia investigation began in July, because of something Papadopoulos said to an Australian diplomat in May. Papadopoulos had supposedly told the Australian diplomat something about Russia having information that “could be damaging” to Clinton. Papadopoulos allegedly heard this from Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese-born professor who allegedly claimed to have close ties with Russia.

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team charged Papadopoulos — unconvincingly — with lying to investigators, because Papadopoulos said his contacts with Mifsud began before he was on the Trump campaign. Actually, the contacts started after he “learned he would be a foreign policy advisor for the campaign,” but before the campaign made a public announcement that he was to be an advisor.

Mifsud is strangely now in hiding, possibly fearing for his life. Lee Smith details Mifsud’s ties to Western intelligence agencies, and Margot Cleveland suspects Mifsud may have been a U.S. intelligence plant along with Halper.

2. The Trump Tower Meeting

Whenever Democrats or David French types talk about Trump and Russia collusion they look to the Trump Tower meeting as definitive proof. There are several problems with that. First, no presidential campaign in American history would pass up the chance of hearing evidence of crimes being committed by their opponent, no matter the source. In fact, some would say you’re doing the country a favor if you let everyone know that your opponent is subject to blackmail from a not-so-friendly foreign power (just don’t have your son and son-in-law sit in on the meeting).

More problematic is that Glenn Simpson — head of Fusion GPS, the firm being paid by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to prove (or create) ties between Trump and Russia — met with the two Russians who attended the Trump Tower meeting both before and after the meeting. Simpson’s excuse for doing so? Because he was working with the two Russians on a different issue, the repeal of the anti-Kremlin Magnitsky Act.

In other words, at the very least, the firm that created the dossier for Clinton and the DNC — using Russian intelligence sources — was the same firm that was working with the Kremlin to repeal a law passed by Congress because Putin’s thugs beat an innocent man to death in Russian prison. At most, this was yet another setup.

3. Mike Flynn And The Logan Act

During the 2016 campaign, Democrats howled about the need to prosecute Trump campaign officials under an obscure 1799 law called the Logan Act. Byron York has documented that this was the pretext Obama-appointed former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates used to unmask former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s side of highly-appropriate phone conversations with the Russian ambassador that occurred during the transition period, and then send FBI agents to interview Flynn about those conversations.

Although the FBI has tried to cover this up, we now know that the agents who interviewed Flynn — including the disgraced and hugely anti-Trump Peter Strzok — didn’t believe that Flynn had lied. Nevertheless, Mueller’s team charged Flynn with lying to the FBI. After Mueller’s charge had nearly bankrupted Flynn, and after Mueller threatened to go after Flynn’s son, Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI.

4. Andrew McCabe Sets Up Reince Priebus

After an intelligence briefing at the White House in early 2017, former FBI number two Andrew McCabe asked to meet privately with former White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. A story had just dropped — anonymously sourced from multiple intelligence community officials — that Trump aides had multiple contacts with Russian intelligence during the election.

McCabe wanted to tell Priebus that the FBI didn’t think the story was true. Of course, Priebus asked McCabe if the FBI could publicly say just that. McCabe said he would have to check. But former FBI Director James Comey called Priebus to say that the FBI couldn’t publicly shoot down the story.

Days later, the “breaking news” on CNN was that the White House had tried to pressure the FBI into batting down the reports on supposed ties between Trump and Russia. So not only was the White House supposedly colluding, now there were allegations of obstruction of justice.

5. Brennan Shops Dossier To Harry Reid

Former CIA Director John Brennan, who may have been the U.S. intelligence official to first push an investigation into the Trump campaign, briefed then-Sen. Harry Reid on the Clinton-funded dossier in August 2016.

The briefing did two things: First, it lent some legitimacy to the dossier, and second, it got Reid to pressure the FBI to not drop the investigation. The briefing had the added bonus of allowing Reid to speak publicly about Trump’s ties to Russia, as if he had just gained access to groundbreaking proof of collusion, which was of course covered by the media.

6. Comey And Clapper Give CNN A Reason To Publish The Dossier

Comey, at the behest of former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, briefed Trump on one of the allegations in the dossier, but not on the main allegation in the dossier, who had funded the dossier, or how that dossier was being used by the FBI. Nevertheless, this briefing looks like one more setup, meant to allow CNN to report on the existence of the dossier as if it were highly verified and being seriously examined by U.S. intelligence community officials.

Clapper then leaked information about the dossier and the briefings to CNN, and later looks to have lied about those leaks to Congress. Amazingly, Clapper has previously lied to Congress. Clapper now works for CNN.

7. The Jeff Sessions Recusal

Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation after anonymous intelligence community leaks about his contacts with Russians. Specifically, Sessions — as a senator — met with former Russian ambassador to the U.S. Sergei Kislyak in his D.C. office. In another meeting, Sessions gave a speech and a gaggle of diplomats — including Kislyak — talked with him for several minutes as he was coming off the stage.

The idea behind the unnecessary recusal was that somehow Sessions had misrepresented these contacts to former Sen. Al Franken. Actually, Franken — referring to one of many CNN stories sourced by anonymous officials about supposed Trump and Russia collusion — had clearly asked about whether Sessions had colluded with any Russians during the campaign, not whether Sessions had ever met any Russians.

8. Rosenstein Recommends Comey Firing, Appoints Special Counsel

But with Jeff Sessions out of the way, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein became the acting attorney general for all things Russia-investigation-related. Rosenstein then recommended Comey’s firing, and then — overseeing the investigation that stemmed from that firing — appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel. Mueller, a former FBI Director, happened to be a close associate of Comey and Rosenstein, and would surely want to protect the interests of the FBI and the Justice Department.

Taken together, these setups indicate a massive effort to aid the Clinton campaign before the election.

After all, the entire theory of Trump-Russia collusion originated with the Clinton campaign in the lead-up to the Democrat National Convention, when it became clear that the DNC had experienced a document theft. That document theft was highly embarrassing to Clinton and the DNC, as it revealed that the DNC had been systematically stacking the deck against Bernie Sanders. The immediate goal, then, was to both distract from the mistreatment of Bernie, and completely peel the GOP national security establishment away from Trump. The Clinton campaign was successful in both of these efforts.

Later, during the general election, whenever Hillary’s misdeeds came up, Clinton responded by pointing to Trump’s nefarious ties with Russia. Distasteful as it may seem, this was Machiavellian politics 101. Any focus group of voters would have told the Clinton people that Hillary was the steady hand, but that they had ethical concerns about her, and also sought a change from the status quo. The way to counteract this reluctance was to paint Hillary’s opponent as ethically challenged, too, and paint his alternative to the status quo as downright dangerous. (You might say that Trump was an easy target here, but look what the Obama-campaign did to Romney.)

Dirty tricks are of course not new to American politics. But the apparent involvement of the U.S. intelligence community in these setups is deeply troubling. Democrats, intelligence bureaucrats, and the media have told us that the investigation started with Page. When that fell apart, they said the investigation started with Papadopoulos. Now, the Papadopoulos origination story is falling apart too.

It now looks like the corrupt and highly partisan upper-echelon of the U.S. intelligence community started their preliminary investigation as soon as the Clinton people — in the run-up to the Democratic convention — began claiming that there were ties between Trump and Russia. During this same time, Clinton and the DNC paid Fusion GPS, which hired Chris Steele to dig up ties between Trump and Russia.

This is nothing more than prosecutorial point and shoot, where corrupt big-government politicians send the corrupt and sympathetic federal bureaucracy after their political enemies. It’s no different than what happened with Lois Lerner at the Internal Revenue Service. Democrats gave speeches and sent official letters, Obama implied he wanted action, and dutiful bureaucrats did the rest.

With the intelligence agencies on board, legitimacy was lent to the Hillary Clinton campaign’s wild claims. All the media had to do in the weeks before Election Day was to frantically report that Trump’s campaign was being investigated, and that a document containing allegations of Trump-Russia ties (the “dossier”) was being seriously looked into by intelligence officials. That fed back to the voters, and certainly made many feel a little bit better about voting for Clinton, or not voting for Trump.

After the election, it has been all about C.Y.A., because these corrupt bureaucrats leading these intelligence bureaucracies never imagined Trump would win. Here, ladies and gentleman, is your real election interference and collusion: between the massive, all-powerful and unaccountable intelligence bureaucracies, the media, the Obama administration, and the Clinton campaign.

Dr Vaishnavy Laxman cleared of misconduct after a medical panel decided it was 'a single error of judgement made in very difficult circumstances'

Some of the victims in his collection of indecent images and videos appeared to be as young as 18 months old

Ayyyyyyyy!

Actor Henry Winkler — who, despite appearing in dozens of movies and TV series since Happy Days went off the air in 1984, is still best known as his character from that iconic sitcom, “The Fonz” — was not able to vote in Tuesday’s California primary. Winkler, it turned out, was one of nearly 120,000 registered Los Angeles county voters whose names were left off the rolls due to a printing error.

My name was left off the polling registry today on Los Angeles

— Henry Winkler (@hwinkler4real) June 6, 2018

Happy Days fans seized on the kerfuffle — with many astutely suggesting that the Fonz try hitting the voting machine as if it were the jukebox at Arnold’s. Here’s a sampling of reaction to the Fonz’s voting difficulties from a bunch of nostalgic sitcom fans.

Did you look under “Fonzarelli, Arthur”? Just asking.

— Alt_Mom (@judihayes) June 6, 2018

Ayyyyyyyy

— Wake Up! It's 1984. (@AOTPRadio) June 6, 2018

Chachi did it.

— JadeinNM (@Jadeinnm) June 6, 2018

He has always been secretly jealous of Fonzi.

— Sharon (@ulsterborn) June 6, 2018

These arent Happy Days

— Brandon Ayash (@ayash_brandon) June 6, 2018

Did you try this?#ayyyee!!! pic.twitter.com/O8gJ8SyP23

— Doriano Carta (@Paisano) June 6, 2018

Did you give the machine a good whack on the side to reset it?

(And to play the song “Blueberry Hill”)

— Jerome Patrick Miron (@JeromePMiron) June 6, 2018

pic.twitter.com/jO7yrOluxB

— Michael Angelo (@BigHands4632) June 6, 2018

It was under fonder The Fonz

— Magical Unicorn (@gilgamesh305) June 6, 2018

Eeeeeeyyyyy!!

— Melvin Bagby (@MelvinBagby) June 6, 2018

Check to see if it’s under “The Fonz” Aaaaaay

— Julie Hayden (@jewlshd) June 6, 2018

AYYYYYYYYYYYY

— Jim Treacher (@jtLOL) June 6, 2018

Tell them to "sit on it"…heeeyyy

— William Long (@whlong) June 6, 2018

Not cool pic.twitter.com/C0bxI5YMHH

— Steve (@steve_s_iz_cool) June 6, 2018

This wouldn't have happened at Arnold's or Al's drive-in! pic.twitter.com/tAW2LsVXOK

— Rocket Girl (@rocketgirlup) June 6, 2018

[featured image via screengrab]

——

Read 25 remaining paragraphs | Comments

WASHINGTON/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Facebook Inc faced criticism on Wednesday from Republican and Democratic U.S. lawmakers who demanded that the social media company be more forthcoming about data it has shared with four Chinese firms.

Double standard?

A 13-year-old boy accused of shooting a teacher and classmate at an Indiana middle school will not be tried as an adult, prosecutors said.

A soldier who stole an armored military vehicle was arrested after leading Virginia police on a 60-mile chase Tuesday night, authorities said.

'This is not your fault. Ask Daddy!'

A soldier called Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on a pizza delivery man after he made a delivery to a military base in New York City, ...

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Facebook Inc said on Wednesday it would introduce U.S. news programs this year hosted by Anderson Cooper of CNN, Shepard Smith of Fox News and Jorge Ramos of Univision to try to improve the quality of news on the social network.

A White House contractor was arrested at a security checkpoint by Secret Service agents who noticed he had an attempted first-degree murder charge warrant.

'I hereby resign from my race'

PAHOA, HAWAII (HawaiiNewsNow) – A massive river of lava covered hundreds more homes overnight as it poured into the sea, filling all of Kapoho Bay and decimating entire neighborhoods.

It’s believed to be the single most destructive day of any eruption in modern times.

And it not only took homes, it completely filled Kapoho Bay, extending .8 miles from the coastline.

“It’s saddening, it’s disheartening to see it go like that,” said Jason Hill, whose father lives in Kapoho. “The anxiety lies in what happens next.”

"The Fake News Media has been so unfair, and vicious, to my wife and our great First Lady, Melania," Trump tweeted.

Read 10 remaining paragraphs | Comments

The sports world continues to respond to President Trump’s decision late Monday to disinvite the Philadelphia Eagles from a trip to the White House to celebrate their first Super Bowl championship. Politico reports the Trump Administration thinks the ongoing controversies surrounding NFL players and the National Anthem is a political winner, but the facts suggest otherwise.

First, some disclosures: I’ve been an Eagles fan all my life, and considered myself lucky to watch their Super Bowl LII victory in person in February. I scored an invitation to the Eagles’ scheduled White House visit last week, and while I still went to the event on Tuesday, I wish that both sides had been able to resolve their differences, so that Super Bowl MVP Nick Foles and others that wanted to visit the White House had an opportunity to do so.

That said, my thoughts upon hearing the news Monday evening immediately turned to the political implications of the sudden cancellation:

Guess @realDonaldTrump doesn’t want to win #Pennsylvania in 2020. Not that it’s a key state or anything… #KeystoneState #FlyEaglesFly https://t.co/y494Ouv7Dh

— Chris Jacobs (@chrisjacobsHC) June 5, 2018

A review of Pennsylvania election results confirms my gut reaction on Monday night: The Eagles controversy affects key areas in a swing state where Trump has little margin for error in his re-election bid.

Keystone State Strategy

In general, Republicans attempting to win statewide office in Pennsylvania follow the same basic strategy: They will lose big in the cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh (Allegheny County), but must keep the margins close in the four “collar counties” surrounding Philadelphia (Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery), and then rack up big margins in the “T” — essentially the rest of the state outside suburban Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

Ironically, in 2016 Trump received 19,541 fewer votes than Barack Obama did during his 2012 re-election bid. But because Hillary Clinton slightly under-performed Obama, and because Trump dramatically over-performed Mitt Romney’s 2012 vote count, Trump won the state.

A comparison of county-by-county election results for the two major-party candidates in the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections demonstrates how effectively Trump capitalized on the latter part of the strategy — running up votes in the “T.” Excluding Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and the four counties surrounding Philadelphia, Romney received 396,474 more votes than Obama. By comparison, in those same 61 counties, Trump outpolled Clinton by 816,059 votes — more than doubling Romney’s margin in the “T.”

Problems With Suburban Voters

But a comparison between the performance of Trump and fellow Republican Pat Toomey, who defeated Democratic candidate Katie McGinty to win a second Senate term on the same day Trump won the White House, reveals the downside of the Trump strategy. (Full disclosure: I got my start on Capitol Hill working for then-Congressman Toomey during his first term in the House.)

Trump narrowly polled more votes than Toomey, in part due to the “under-vote” — about 60,000 voters who cast a ballot for president did not vote in the Senate race. That said, Toomey won his election over McGinty by nearly twice as many votes (86,690) as Trump did over Clinton (44,292). And he did so despite having only one third-party candidate who took away votes on his right. That Libertarian candidate pulled more votes than the three third-party candidates in the presidential race combined, whereas Trump had Green Party candidate Jill Stein to siphon votes away from Clinton on her left.

What propelled Toomey’s larger margin of victory? The county-by-county results show that, while Trump did better in rural areas, Toomey performed much better with suburban voters. Although Trump won 56 of the Commonwealth’s 67 counties, Toomey won four more that Trump did not, including Dauphin County, home of the state capital of Harrisburg, and Centre County, home of State College and Penn State University. Toomey also won two of the four “collar counties” surrounding Philadelphia — Bucks and Chester — while Trump lost to Clinton in all four of them.

The “collar counties” demonstrate Trump’s problem with suburban voters. Whereas Toomey kept the margins close against McGinty, losing by 60,557 votes in the four counties combined, Trump lost to Clinton by more than three times as many votes (188,353). Even as he outperformed Romney across the rest of the state, Trump got 12,780 fewer votes in those suburban counties than did the 2012 nominee, and lost by a much bigger margin.

A Bad Situation Made Worse?

Trump is in a potentially precarious position in Pennsylvania heading into 2020. He achieved historically high vote totals in the “T,” yet won by only the narrowest of margins. Trump has little chance of squeezing an even greater margin from the “T” to overcome any improvements in Democratic fortunes, either through a return to Obama’s 2012 totals, or the lack of a third-party candidate like Stein to siphon off votes to the Democrat’s left, or both. The only path to victory may lie through voters in suburban Philadelphia, who Trump did not do well with in 2016, and who he may have further alienated this week.

The White House spent a good part of Tuesday pushing back on the controversy, stating that the Eagles initially promised to send a large contingent, only to withdraw at the last minute. Doubtless the response comes in part because the White House’s Political Affairs office recognizes the implications of the Keystone State. With the Pennsylvania Supreme Court creating brand new, and in several cases more competitive, congressional districts for this year’s mid-term elections, Republicans have reason to pay attention to the Commonwealth’s role in the battle for the House this year, and the battle for the White House in 2020.

To put it in stark relief: Had only 22,147 Pennsylvanians who voted for Trump pulled the lever for Clinton instead, the Democrat would have won the state’s 20 electoral votes. The Eagles’ home stadium, Lincoln Financial Field, seats 69,176 — more than three times that number. If, to borrow Tip O’Neill’s phrase, “all politics is local,” the math suggests this parochial issue could end up having national implications.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration secretly sought to give Iran access — albeit briefly — to the U.S. financial system by sidestepping sanctions kept in place after the 2015 nuclear deal, despite repeatedly telling Congress and the public it had no plans to do so.

An investigation by Senate Republicans released Wednesday sheds light on the delicate balance the Obama administration sought to strike after the deal, as it worked to ensure Iran received its promised benefits without playing into the hands of the deal’s opponents. Amid a tense political climate, Iran hawks in the U.S., Israel and elsewhere argued that the United States was giving far too much to Tehran and that the windfall would be used to fund extremism and other troubling Iranian activity.

The report by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations revealed that under President Barack Obama, the Treasury Department issued a license in February 2016, never previously disclosed, that would have allowed Iran to convert $5.7 billion it held at a bank in Oman from Omani rials into euros by exchanging them first into U.S. dollars. If the Omani bank had allowed the exchange without such a license, it would have violated sanctions that bar Iran from transactions that touch the U.S. financial system.

President Trump is in the process getting paperwork ready for dozens of pardons, according to a Wednesday report from ...

Tesla has faced stiff headwinds lately