Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

Our Angel's Corner archive is here.

JULY 12,  2017

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 9:06 P.M. ET:

SUCH GENIUSES – FROM FOX:  Two Democratic congressmen introduced an article of impeachment on Wednesday against President Trump, accusing him of obstruction of justice over his firing of former FBI Director James Comey.  The resolution says Trump “prevented, obstructed and impeded” the investigation of former national security adviser Michael Flynn by “threatening and then terminating” Comey.  Rep. Al Green (D-TX), accompanied by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), speaks with the media about his plans to draft articles of impeachment against President Trump on June 7, 2017.   “We now begin the effort to force the House Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on obstruction of justice and Russian interference in our election,” said California Rep. Brad Sherman, who sponsored the resolution. Texas Rep. Al Green is a co-sponsor.   The resolution had been expected, despite warnings from others in the Democratic Party that talk about "impeachment" is not helpful.  No, not helpful at all.  There isn't anything close to an impeachable offense here.  They're making fools of themselves.  But, of course, they're liberals. 

SHE'S BAAACK – FROM THE POLITICO:  Donna Brazile will celebrate the one-year anniversary of President Donald Trump’s election with the publication of her book “Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House.”  Brazile was chosen as interim Democratic National Committee chair after the Wikileaks release of internal party emails last year precipitated the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Brazile became a favorite target of Trump and his supporters after an email released in a separate hack appeared to show she slipped a question to Hillary Clinton ahead of one of the Democratic primary debates.  Brazile’s publisher Hachette promises a book that is “equal parts campaign thriller, memoir, and roadmap for the future.” The publisher did not say how much the book deal was worth.  I simply cannot wait for my copy.  Why, we're getting the wit and wisdom of someone who improperly slipped her fave candidate a question before a debate.  Haven't you always wanted to know the thinking of someone who does that?

THE LESS AFFLUENT DON'T EAT MORE FAST FOOD – FROM CNN:  Our recently published research examined this assumption by looking at who eats fast food using a large sample of random Americans. What we found surprised us: Poor people were actually less likely to eat fast food -- and do so less frequently -- than those in the middle class, and only a little more likely than the rich...In other words, the guilty pleasure of enjoying a McDonald's hamburger, Kentucky Fried Chicken popcorn nuggets or Taco Bell burrito is shared across the income spectrum, from rich to poor, with an overwhelming majority of every group reporting having indulged at least once over a nonconsecutive three-week period.  Please keep these findings from Michelle Obama.  She'll go into shock.

July 12,  2017      Permalink

THE PEOPLE ARE ON TO THE WASHINGTON DANCE – AT 11:51 A.M. ET:  Many years ago I had the chance to interview Charles Kuralt, who did the "On the Road" series for CBS.  I asked him, "Charles, of all the things you've learned in the years you've traveled around the United States, what is the one thing that stands out?"  Without any hesitation, Kuralt answered, "I am always amazed at how well informed Americans are." 

Kuralt was right.  His opinion isn't popular in "intellectual" circles, but was still right.  The average American may not be able to articulate his or her views in the manner of a professor of history, but the average American has a keen sense of what is actually happening.  And tracking polls show that Americans are interested and engaged.

Americans are following the probes in Washington.  From IBD: 

Is Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation in trouble? Officially, the answer is no. But the results of a new IBD/TIPP Poll suggest that many Americans are highly skeptical of both Mueller and the ongoing investigation into Russian meddling in last year's election.

Mueller was named to be special counsel after President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey in May. Comey was investigating claims that Russia interfered in the U.S. election and that the Trump campaign may have colluded with Russian officials.

Since then, Mueller himself has come under fire for hiring a number of prosecutors who donated to Hillary Clinton, which some see as a possible conflict of interest.

"I can say that the people that have been hired are all Hillary Clinton supporters," Trump said on "Fox and Friends" in late June.

Other Republicans, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, echo that sentiment. "The fix is in," Gingrich said in an interview with The Daily Caller. "This is the establishment counterattacking legally when they lost politically."

Moreover, one of the prosecutors that Mueller added to his team, Andrew Rosenstein, previously worked for U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, whom Trump also fired. And Mueller and Comey, his successor at the FBI, are known to be close friends.

So, in the minds of many, the conflicts in the Mueller investigation are piling up, as the IBD/TIPP data clearly indicate. The IBD/TIPP Poll data were gathered June 23 to June 29.

Perhaps most seriously, among the 614 polled who say they're following the Russia story closely, 49% say that Special Counsel Mueller's friendship with former FBI Director James Comey represents a "conflict of interest for Mueller's investigation." Some 47% disagreed.

The results, no surprise here, skewed sharply according to party affiliation. A majority of Republicans (81%) and Independents (52%) said Mueller had a conflict of interest with his Comey friendship. Just 26% of Democrats agreed.

Meanwhile, even more poll respondents  — including a surprising number of Democrats — felt a conflict existed in the fact that Mueller had interviewed with the White House to replace former FBI chief Comey, who stands at the center of the investigation into Russia's alleged tampering with the 2016 vote and alleged collusion with the Trump campaign.

Mueller was no stranger to the job, having held the post from 2001 to 2013, under both President Bush and President Obama. Based on that, it should be no surprise that the White House would want to interview him.

But the IBD/TIPP Poll shows Americans seem bothered by this. Some 52% agreed that Mueller's job interview was a conflict of interest going forward for the investigation, while just 40% disagreed. No surprise that 70% of Republicans and 52% of Independents felt this was a problem. But 41% of Democrats also did.

As for the charge that many of the lawyers hired by Mueller for his team were Hillary Clinton supporters, just 44% agreed that this was a "legitimate concern," while 52% disagreed. But again, Republicans (83%) and Independents (51%) were a majority thinking it was a concern. Just 13% of Democrats did.

COMMENT:  I think the public is right.  The impression of justice is as important as the reality of justice.  The impression of justice here is pretty awful.  Mueller, surprisingly, has shown something of a tin ear.

July 12, 2017       Permalink

GOOD IDEA – AT 11:08 A.M. ET:  One of the major mistakes of this administration was the failure to clean house when it took office.  The White House should have been wiped clean of all Obama employees.  Appointments to key offices in agencies should have been made, putting loyal Republicans in charge.  When an assistant secretary of state position is vacant, those in that second do what they wish.  In too many cases, what they wish is what Obama wished.  From Fox:   

President Trump’s former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski predicted Wednesday that the leakers driving coverage of Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting last year with a Russian lawyer will be fired, as the White House reportedly scrambles to find the source or sources.

“Anybody, and I mean anybody who is not on the president’s agenda that works in this administration should absolutely be removed immediately,” Lewandowski told “Fox & Friends” on Wednesday morning.

“I don’t know who the leaker is but let me tell you this, if it were up to me, and somebody was speaking to the media [and leaking information detrimental to Trump], I would fire them on the spot, and Donald Trump will do the same,” he added.

Numerous accounts in the wake of the Trump Jr. revelations have described the White House as racked by internal drama and suspicion. In seeming reference to such stories, the president tweeted Wednesday morning: “Remember, when you hear the words ‘sources say’ from the Fake Media, often times those sources are made up and do not exist.” 

But there is little question the president’s inner circle would like to get to the bottom of the leaks.
The latest – and perhaps most serious – Russia-related controversy started when The New York Times began reporting on a meeting Donald Trump Jr., then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner had last summer with a Russian lawyer who apparently offered to provide dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Trump Jr. on Tuesday ultimately published the emails he exchanged with the contact who set up the meeting -- music publicist Rob Goldstone. Those emails describe the offer of incriminating information on Clinton as part of "Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump."

COMMENT:  Washington runs partly on leaks to reporters, but leaks can be carried to such an extreme that they paralyze the government.  Some portray leakers as heroes and heroines, and some are.  But most are not.  Most are partisans doing their bit for their side, or their little piece of the pie.  Some seek to ingratiate themselves with reporters.  It's an ugly business.

There are more leaks to come.  And if Trump should have a major success, you may be sure it will be followed by a leaked, unfavorable story.  That is the game.

July 12, 2017       Permalink

ANYTHING NEW? – AT 10:18 A.M. ET:  What can I tell you that's both new and accurate, about the Donald Trump Jr. scandal, soon to be described by CNN as the greatest scandal in the history of this or any other world?  Not much.  Nothing terribly new. 

In truth, had this been the Obama administration, with Michelle meeting with some Russian lawyer, the story would have never made the papers.

Lesson one in politics:  What happens to you will depend largely on who you are, not what you do.  R

Richard Nixon, not my favorite guy, was driven from office because he was Richard Nixon.  Watergate was a minor scandal that he mishandled.  Had it been Jack Kennedy in office, it would have been a hiccup.  And the Washinton Post, whose editor, Ben Bradlee, was a close personal friend of Kennedy's, wouldn't have shown the slightest interest.

Lyndon Johnson was essentially driven from office – forced out of the Democratic presidential race in 1968 – because he was Lyndon Johnson.  He was despised by the liberal, Ivy League wing of his own party, which pined for the days of finer music concerts in the White House.  Jack Kennedy, who in many ways I admired, made incredibly serious mistakes in his first year in office, but he was Jack Kennedy.  No calls from the mainstream media for his head.

Now there is a real, serious attempt to drive Donald Trump from office.  The American people dared elect him, and the American people must be punished.  True, Trump has brought much of this on himself.  He made too many enemies and not enough friends while running for president, and, unlike Reagan, hasn't reached out to potential allies since his inauguration.   He isn't, to use Arthur Miller's phrase from Death of a Salesman, "well-liked."

But Donald Trump is the elected president.  He is remarkably active and determined.  He is repairing the pathetic foreign policy of Field Marshal Obama and Grand Admiral Kerry.  He deserves a chance, and too many don't want to give him that chance.

That is what this is about – the determination to bring down a presidency by those who couldn't win an election.  It is of a piece with the dream of the political left to govern by non-democratic means, by investigations, harassment, court decisions and legal maneuvers.  Who needs those deplorables out there?

This is a critical time for this democracy.

July 12,  2017     Permalink

JULY 11,  2017

SHORT TAKES ON THE DRIFTING WRECKAGE – AT 11:55 P.M. ET:

SAY IT AIN'T SO, DON JR – But it is.  I've spent most of the day monitoring the developing "Donald Trump Jr" meeting.  We'll have much more on this as the story develops.  Initial reaction:  Clearly, Donald Trump Jr. used poor judgment in meeting with some Russian lawyer after being told the individual had damaging information on Hillary Clinton, and that the information came from the Russian government.  Trump Jr. probably also received awful political advice from Trump campaign operatives.  However, it's hard to go much beyond the charge of "poor judgment."  Trump Jr. can be faulted, and should be.  His lack of candor in revealing the details of the meeting before yesterday cannot be defended.  This is a painful moment.  But to suggest "treason," as one nutty Democrat did, is to show that the Dems will probably ruin their case by exaggeration and distortion.  Still developing.

TELL IT TO THE JUDGE – FROM AP:  HOUSTON (AP) — An 11-year-old Houston-area girl who was pulled over for speeding told police that her mother allows her to drive but that this was the first time without an adult.  Police in Pasadena say the girl told them she was driving her 10-year-old brother home after they stopped her for driving 49 mph in a 35 mph zone.   Their 25-year-old mother, Maria DeJesus Lopez, has been charged with two counts of child endangerment and is free on $3,000 bond following a Monday court appearance.  It's such a relief, in the midst of all these Washington hearings and legal opinions, to see such a beautifully clear-cut violation of the law.  I'm sure the judge will be tough but fair.

MORE LAWBREAKING NEWS – FROM THE L.A. TIMES:   Older-model Hondas and newer-model Toyotas were among the country’s most-stolen vehicles in 2016.  And almost half the stolen Japanese cars were grabbed in California.  The National Insurance Crime Bureau reported in its annual “Hot Wheels” survey that Honda’s Civic and Accord were the most-stolen vehicles last year, followed by pickup trucks made by Ford and Chevrolet, and then by the Toyota Camry and Nissan Altima. A Dodge pickup, the Chevy Impala, the Toyota Corolla and the Jeep Cherokee rounded out the top 10.  But thieves aren’t stealing just any Civics or Accords. The bureau’s report said that Hondas from the late 1990s were the most targeted models — specifically the 1997 Accord and 1998 Civic. That's because those models were sold in very high volume, were built well enough to still be on the road, and did not include the “smart key” technology that makes newer Hondas much more difficult to steal.  Fifty years ago, names like Honda Accord and Civic didn't even appear in American showrooms.  Now they've received the very coveted "most stolen" honor.  Will there be a televised awards show?

July 11,  2017     Permalink

IT'S ALL ABOUT GOVERNING – AT 1:28 P.M. ET:   Why am I not surprised by this research report from IBD? 

Several states, including Republican states, have decided to raise taxes this year to cover budget shortfalls. But a new study suggests that the states might find themselves in worse financial shape after the money starts rolling in.

According to the latest ranking of states by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, the most fiscally sound states in the nation are all low-tax, GOP strongholds, while the 10 least-solvent states are almost all high-tax and heavily Democratic.

The rankings in the fourth-annual "Ranking of the States by Fiscal Condition" report, which was released this morning, are based on a review of audited financial statements for 2015 covering five measures that gauge the states' ability to pay bills, avoid budget deficits, and meet long-term spending needs and cover pension liabilities.

Cash solvency, for example, measures a state's ability to pay immediate bills. Budget solvency focuses on whether states will end the year with a surplus or deficit. Service-level solvency gauges a state's ability to meet a demand for increased spending. Long-run solvency looks at a state's ability to meet longer-term spending commitments. Trust-fund solvency looks at the states' unfunded pension liabilities and state debt.

And...

Of the 25 most-solvent states, all but four are solidly Republican. Of the bottom 25 states, all but five are solidly Democratic.

COMMENT:  Read the whole story.  It has a state chart with it, ranking the states.  Some of these states are going to be in desperate financial trouble and may try to renegotiate contracts.  If we hit an economic downturn, the situation will get much worse.

Illinois is everyone's favorite basket case right now.  But the states around Illinois seem to be doing just fine.  Gee, I wonder why. 

July 11, 2017       Permalink

GUN CHECKS, AN IMPORTANT INDICATOR, ARE WAY DOWN – AT 10:08 A.M. ET:   Upward spikes in gun purchases often correspond to apprehension in the public about safety, or fear that its gun rights might be taken away or reduced.

Recently, though, there's been a spike downward.  From the New York Post: 

FBI firearm background checks are down sharply from their record 2016 pace — although almost one in four states across the country appear to be buying guns as if Hillary Clinton had won the election.

Through June 30, the FBI has undertaken 1.2 million fewer firearm background checks than in 2016, putting this year on pace for the biggest annual drop-off in checks since the bureau started collecting the data in 1998, according to the bureau’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS.

While background checks don’t exactly track gun sales, analysts say they’re a good barometer for the direction of the market.

Kentucky is by far the state with the most background checks — 2.2 million so far this year, a 19 percent rise from the same period last year, NICS data show.

With a population of about 4.4 million, the state is on trend for one background check for every person in the state.

By contrast, the 55,471 FBI background checks in New Jersey in the first half of the year translates on a full-year basis to one background check for every 83 residents.

COMMENT:  Theoretically, the overall drop means people feel safer under Trump or believe that their gun rights are secure.  No urgency about buying a gun.  I cannot account for the discrepancy between Kentucky and New Jersey.

July 11, 2017       Permalink

MESSAGE SENT – AT 9:44 A.M. ET:  The United States has successfully tested a defensive missile, with serious implications for our clash with North Korea.  From Reuters: 

WASHINGTON, July 11 (Reuters) - The United States said on Tuesday it successfully tested its THAAD missile defense system against an intermediate-range ballistic missile in the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii and Alaska, a key area as tensions with North Korea mount.

A Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) near Kodiak, Alaska, intercepted the ballistic missile target that was launched north of Hawaii, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) said in a statement.

Although the test was planned months ago, the U.S. missile defense test has gained significance following North Korea's July 4 launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that raised concerns about the threat from Pyongyang.

"The successful demonstration of THAAD against an IRBM-range missile threat bolsters the country's defensive capability against developing missile threats in North Korea and other countries around the globe and contributes to the broader strategic deterrence architecture," MDA said in the statement.

U.S. officials have said the test would be the first of the THAAD system to defend against a simulated attack by an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM).

COMMENT:   We must put in a word of caution.  A single successful test does not guarantee that we have a solid defense against incoming missiles.  In the "real world" there will only be a percentage of defense missiles that will hit their mark.  We aim for the highest percentage, of course.

There's a lot of chatter about the possibility that the U.S. may shoot down a North Korean test missile, raising the stakes in our dispute with North Korea.  I have no information on that.  There are positives, in making clear our determination to break the North Korean missile program, but there are also negatives.  North Korea could launch an artillery attack into the South Korean capital of Seoul, which is just south of the North's border with the South.  Then we could be looking at major ground action.

No good options. 

July 11,  2017     Permalink