October 30th, 2016

A few more thoughts on the Comey announcement

[NOTE: I’ll probably be writing a bigger post on the topic tomorrow, because I have quite a few things to say about it. But here are some quick thoughts.]

James Comey is now the center of an even hotter firestorm of controversy than he was this past summer when he announced the results of the Clinton email investigation. And that’s saying something. One of the biggest problems at the moment, both for Clinton and the American people, is that we don’t know whether the news is important or a big pile of nothing. And we probably won’t know until after the election.

However, those who say Comey never should have disclosed this a little over a week before the presidential election because it affects that election are ignoring a huge elephant in the room, which is that there was no way for Comey not to have influenced the election, no matter what he did. Keeping a secret affects it, disclosing it affects it. The information was going to come out sooner or later, and if it was known that he knew and failed to disclose, that would create a terrible furor too.

The only difference is that at present most of the furor is on the left. Had Comey kept it secret, the furor would have been mostly on the right.

As Andrew McCarthy writes, under the usual rules Comey probably shouldn’t have taken the unusual step back in July of saying so much about an investigation that led to no indictment:

For these reasons, the common adage when I worked in the U.S. attorney’s office was: “The government speaks in court.” The idea is that it is not the business of the Justice Department and the FBI to convict people in the court of public opinion; we speak only when we are ready to put our money where our mouth is by charging someone publicly in a court of law. Unless and until charges are filed, zip it: Don’t confirm or deny the existence of an investigation, don’t publicly identify targets, subjects or witnesses, and don’t describe the evidence that has been gathered…

Director Comey departed from these guidelines in the Clinton investigation, rationalizing that the probe was a matter of great public concern. But many criminal investigations are matters of great public concern. That doesn’t mean law enforcement holds press conferences to outline the evidence that has not resulted in the filing of criminal charges. Since Americans are presumed innocent in our system, there is no reason to clear them publicly. They are “cleared” by the happenstance that they are not charged.

And now we see the fallout of bending the rules: you end up having to keep bending them. Because Comey went public when he did not have to, he created an expectation – perhaps even an obligation, which is certainly how he sees it – that if circumstances changed, he would have to amend or supplement the record.

There are also many people calling Comey’s move “unprecedented” for a host of reasons (I plan to write more about that tomorrow). But if it’s unprecedented, that’s because the situation itself is unprecedented. Has there ever been an FBI investigation of a nominee of a major party for the office of president of the United States during the build-up to an election? I seriously doubt it. The closest thing we have that I can think of is the Paula Jones civil trial (very different from an FBI investigation), and that was commenced after Clinton was already president (and allowed to go forward, according to the Supreme Court). We also have the three pending Trump University fraud lawsuits, which are ongoing and serious. However, they are also civil suits that commenced long before Trump became a candidate, and they don’t involve the FBI, although one lawsuit features the State of New York as plaintiff.

It almost seems as though the United States’ extraordinary good fortune—the one Otto von Bismarck referred to when he said “There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America”—may have run out all in a rush this year. The nominations of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump would appear to me to indicate it.

98 Responses to “A few more thoughts on the Comey announcement”

  1. Ann Says:

    In line with your thoughts re that Bismarck comment, here’s Kevin Williamson at NRO:

    For the moment, the fortunes of the republic are being held hostage by the competing psychoses of two of the worst people of our times, along with the various financial and political interests attached to those two living, breathing personifications of wrong.

  2. Ann Says:

    oops — here’s the correct NRO link

  3. sdferr Says:

    Dean Barrett, WSJ: FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe

    It’s got a gobs of tick-tock, as the expression goes, as well as heaps of bureaucratic backing-and-forthing — but microscopically little substance on the outstanding questions concerning what is in the e-mails found, who wrote them, who received them, not even whether a simple digital word search on the character “(C)” has been done, etc.

  4. sdferr Says:

    Devlin Barrett, not “Dean”: apologies to all and sundry.

  5. Cornhead Says:

    Unprecedented like Obama was historic. It means nothing.

    WSJ reported that the FBI found 650,000 emails on Huma’s computer including the deleted emails.

    She’s finished. Done. Defeated. Destroyed.

  6. geokstr Says:

    “There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America”—may have run out all in a rush this year.”

    And now, I fear the greatest nation ever conceived is about to experience an extended run of Heinlein’s “bad luck”, whether we lose or lose.

  7. neo-neocon Says:


    The FBI found 650,000 emails on Anthony Weiner’s computer, not Huma’s. Some of them were part of the Hillary Clinton email group, but most seem not to be. Here’s the report [emphasis mine]:

    Federal agents are preparing to scour roughly 650,000 emails contained on the laptop of former Rep. Anthony Weiner to see how many relate to a prior probe of Hillary Clinton’s email use, as metadata on the device suggests there may be thousands sent to or from the private server that the Democratic nominee used while she was secretary of state, according to people familiar with the matter.

    The review will take weeks at a minimum to determine whether those messages are work-related emails between Huma Abedin, a close Clinton aide and the estranged wife of Mr. Weiner, and State Department officials; how many are duplicates of emails already reviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and whether they include either classified information or important new evidence in the Clinton email probe, which FBI officials call “Midyear.”

    The FBI has had to await a court order to begin reviewing the emails, because they were uncovered in an unrelated probe of Mr. Weiner, and that order was delayed for reasons that remain unclear.

  8. mezzrow Says:

    FBI has indeed obtained the warrant to search the emails.

    from an Insty comment: “Either Huma or Weiner retained this trove of emails as an insurance policy against the Clintons, not because they are pack rats.”

    Sounds about right to me. They know the kind of people they are dealing with.

    “events, dear boy, events” – Anthony Eden

  9. mezzrow Says:


    link for above post…

  10. neo-neocon Says:


    You are making quite an assumption there, which is that Weiner and Abedin purposely retained these emails on that computer.

    The FBI has ways of finding everything that was ever on a computer, including things that have been erased. There is no indication as to how these emails were recovered, but there’s no reason to assume that it didn’t involve some pretty fancy cyber-footwork by the FBI.

  11. mezzrow Says:

    Yes I am, and that’s quite an assumption indeed. It just rings true… Maybe not Huma, but Weiner? THAT makes me feel like a tuning fork.

    Now and then, I let myself stand by conclusions when my gut says they make sense to me. When I read that line, it just pushed the TRUE button in my mental grid.

    The facts have outstripped fiction so far, it must be conceded.

    As always, I could be wrong.

  12. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “The closest thing we have that I can think of is the Paula Jones civil trial (very different from an FBI investigation), and that was commenced after Clinton was already president (and allowed to go forward, according to the Supreme Court).” neo

    “Flashback: Bill Clinton cheered 11th hour indictment that doomed Bush re-election”

    “24 years ago, as former President George H.W. Bush was surging back against challenger Bill Clinton, a special prosecutor raised new charges against Bush in the Iran-Contra probe, prompting Clinton to claim he was running against a “culture of corruption.

    Many Republicans claimed that the indictment made by special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh against former Reagan-era Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger the weekend before the 1992 election cost Bush a second term. The indictment, later thrown out, challenged Bush’s claim that he did not know about a controversial arms-for-hostages deal that dogged the Reagan-Bush administration.

    When it came, Clinton seized on it, saying for example, “Secretary Weinberger’s note clearly shows that President Bush has not been telling the truth when he says he was out of the loop.” Clinton added, “It demonstrates that President Bush knew and approved of President Reagan’s secret deal to swap arms for hostages.””

    “FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe”

    “Investigators found 650,000 emails on a laptop used by former Rep. Anthony Weiner and his estranged wife Huma Abedin, a close Clinton aide, and underlying metadata suggests thousands of those messages could have been sent to or from the private server that Mrs. Clinton used while she was secretary of state, according to people familiar with the matter.”

  13. Matt_SE Says:

    In order for healing to begin, you have to admit you have a problem. That’s what this election is about.

  14. huxley Says:

    Hard to say what’s going on with the Comey announcement.

    I’m pretty sure Hillary and Huma wish they had had Anthony Weiner “fixed” after the first scandal.

  15. Cornhead Says:


    Warrant now issued.

    The computer was jointly owned by spouses Weiner and Abedin. Search was proper. They will soon be divorced. Spousal privilege will not apply.

    The file was labeled “Life insurance.” Huma kept all of these emails to blackmail Bill, Hillary, Podesta, Mills et alia, if necessary. She knew she was swimming with sharks.

    Hillary fires her soon.

    Huma is looking at perjury and obstruction of justice. She will cut a deal to rat them all out. She will save herself. The best of it is that Trump’s AG will prosecute or appoint special prosecutor.

    Today was the tipping point. Hillary’s finished.

    A vote for her now means a constitutional crisis.

    Obama needs to say he won’t pardon Hillary. Hillary needs to – but won’t say – that she won’t pardon herself. Too much of an admission.

    You read it here first. America is saved and at the last minute. Thank God.

  16. huxley Says:

    Cornhead: That’s cute. You remind me of me after Benghazi. I was sure Obama would lose the 2012 election or be impeached in 2013 if he won.

    As the Firesign Theater said on “Give Me Immortality or Give Me Death” about the Y2K Armageddon:

    The odds are you’ll be popping a brewski and mowing your lawn per usual.

  17. Geoffrey Britain Says:


    From your lips to God’s ears. That said, God rarely saves people from themselves. Many Americans are determined to commit civilizational suicide. Though hardly unique as history is filled with peoples who destroyed themselves.

    Nor am I persuaded that Hillary will fire Huma before the election. “Bad optics”. I’m also doubtful that Obama will do anything before the election, as it could well be counter-productive to do so.

    I’m equally doubtful that without further exposure of a specific “smoking gun” that this alone will prove sufficient to prevent Hillary from winning.

    If she wins, no matter how apparent her guilt, it all goes away. After all, her “intent” was pure.

  18. mezzrow Says:

    Let’s assume that Weiner could access Huma’s yahoo.com account. Yahoo is a web-based email service. Simply logging into her account would not put thousands of emails onto his computer. But if Weiner logged into Huma’s Yahoo account on his own laptop, all he needed to do was select all the items in Huma’s inbox, deleted emails, etc. (or, alternatively, do a search to identify those that included a clintonemail.com address). He could then move all of those emails–more than 10,000, we are told–in bulk to a folder that he created, and could later delete. He could then drag that folder to his desktop. Having tried this with my long-suffering wife’s yahoo.com account, I believe this will preserve the emails’ metadata. In the alternative, if he accessed the email account on his wife’s laptop, he could drag the folder to a flash drive and thus transfer it to his own computer.

    Why would Weiner do that? His career is over, and he is a laughingstock. His wife, on the other hand, is just one degree of separation from great power, perhaps the next president. Do the math. And Weiner has had a lot of time on his hands lately. He may have thought that keeping a trove of communications between his wife and Hillary Clinton would afford him protection against criminal prosecution. Or he may have said to himself, if I am going down, I am taking Huma and her g*****n boss with me. Of course, that only works if he thinks there is something discreditable in those communications. He would know that better than we do.

    This is all speculation, based on inadequate public information. But the possibility that Anthony Weiner could be the knowing agent of his wife’s and Hillary Clinton’s downfall is intriguing.


  19. neo-neocon Says:


    Well, I certainly don’t agree with you that a Trump election would constitute the “saving” of America. I’ve made that very clear, so I won’t belabor the point.

    My question, though, remains: why do you think you know that these emails were saved purposely? As far as I can see, those reports that they were under a file marked “life insurance” are rumors. I suppose the rumors might turn out to be true, but at the moment the only sites I can find saying that are pretty sketchy. I haven’t seen anything I would trust that says anything of the sort.

    You didn’t provide a link, either. Can you provide a link to a non-sketchy source for the information?

  20. Cornhead Says:


    The emails will be devasting. Clear evidence of multiple crimes. Huma and other lower level people will rat.

    No way Cheryl Mills or David Kendall goes to jail for Hillary. No one likes her.

    She’s going to jail.

  21. Cornhead Says:

    The key is that the file was named, “life insurance.” All of the dirt is there.

  22. huxley Says:

    Cornhead: I’ve thought lots of stuff which came out about the Obama/Clinton crime organizations was devaststing. I thought people would rat.

    But they didn’t or they didn’t in a way that made a difference.

    Maybe it’s different this time but I doubt it.

  23. neo-neocon Says:


    You’re really going off into the stratosphere there, based on very little information at the moment.

    For starters, even if these emails somehow implicated Clinton in criminal acts as you are imagining, what makes you think that the information would be disclosed before the election? If she’s elected in just a little over a week, and then she is indicted for criminal acts (or impeached and convicted because of them), wouldn’t that just result in the ascendance of VP Kaine to the presidency?

    Are you not counting a whole flock of chickens before they’re hatched?

    Unless you think the rumors would cause Trump’s election?

  24. Cornhead Says:

    IF Trump wins, his AG will do it or appoint a special prosecutor. Drain the swamp.

  25. huxley Says:

    For the record, I would be delighted to be wrong.

    However, like neo, I don’t consider a Trump victory to constitute the saving of America.

    Futhermore, as I’ve said before, the 2016 election may be a poisoned chalice for the victor. We may end up grateful that Hillary won this election.

  26. neo-neocon Says:


    I repeat—you are reporting unsubstantiated rumors. Unless you can provide a reliable link to what you’re reporting about “life insurance,” it remains just a wild rumor at this point.

    I tried researching it. I couldn’t find anything reputable about it.

  27. Cornhead Says:


    Clearly the 650k emails will not be released before Election Day, but reasonable doubt has been injected into the race.

    Trump/Conway/Bannon know this is the tipping point and will hammer it repeatedly.

    Huma knew she was working with criminals so that’s why she kept the emails and lied to the FBI about them. Self preservation. Think Mafia.

    There will be clear evidence of crimes. That’s why Mills and Kendall deleted 33k after the Congressional subpoena.

    Mills and Kendall won’t go to jail for Hillary. They will rat. Kendall for sure. He’s 70 and rich.

    Hillary loses the election and the Trump DOJ will prosecute. Report tonight that FBI investigation of the Clinton FDN continues and Lynch blocked.

    The Dems are toast. Swamp draining begins.

  28. neo-neocon Says:


    I read somewhere that it was a laptop shared and used by both Weiner and Abedin at the time. So it would have been Huma who accessed her own emails on it.

    Like all the information in this brouhaha, I have no idea what’s true or false. But that’s what I read.

  29. Cornhead Says:

    The obstruction of justice counts against Mills and Kendall will be devasting. Deletion ordered after subpoena. They will rat.

    Better yet, there is a younger Williams & Connolly lawyer(s) involved. He will definitely rat.

  30. Cornhead Says:

    The disgruntled FBI agents are leaking. Revenge. Saviors of the Republic.

  31. brdavis9 Says:

    …who’d a’ thunk.

    Easily the most interesting election in my life.

    Which would not, however, have been a bucket list item.

  32. Richard Aubrey Says:

    Bismarck missed the point. The constitution and the republic can only work with a moral people.
    I used to be annoyed at frequent mentions of the gramscian long march.

  33. neo-neocon Says:


    To me, you’re just speculating wildly. I won’t keep going on and on with it, because I’ve made my points several times already.

    But for example, you keep repeating things like about the “650k emails.” That was the number of emails on the entire computer. 650K emails will never be released; 650k emails are not relevant. There are nowhere near 650k emails from Hillary on that computer; there are “thousands.” And of those thousands, we have no idea how many are duplicates of what has already been seen, and how many are work-related.

    That’s just for starters.

    The emails that have been released have had some problems, but no smoking guns whatsoever. You are assuming that these new emails will contain smoking guns mainly because you want so deeply for them to contain them, and believe so strongly that they do contain them. But we have no idea whether they do or don’t.

    Of course they might. But we have no idea.

    What’s more, you are apparently assuming that this will lead to a Trump win. I can tell you one thing: for most of the people I know, they could reveal that Hillary eats small infants raw and it wouldn’t cause them to vote for Donald Trump. And they are hardly left-wing fanatics. They’re pretty typical voters, many of them rather middle-of-the-road, and whatever Hillary may have done they think Trump is worse in every way.

  34. neo-neocon Says:


    Yes, they’re leaking to the Wall St. Journal and sources like that. But the information they’re leaking to them isn’t the information I’ve been questioning in this thread.

    We’re talking about fly-by-night sources. Do you think the agents are leaking to them? Please provide a better source for your information such as this “Life Insurance” file, one that isn’t sketchy.

  35. neo-neocon Says:

    Richard Aubrey:

    Well, Bismarck said that in the 1800s, so he was going on old information.

  36. huxley Says:

    Even if someone rats or there is smoking gun evidence, it’s still a legal process which will take months to unwind.

    There is plenty of “reasonable doubt” already, yet Hillary has been leading Trump handily the whole way.

    It took almost two years to get Nixon to resign after Watergate.

    Hint: This is not 1972 or 1974. There are no honorable Democrats who would counsel Hillary to resign. Hillary will have no compunctions about destroying evidence or doing whatever else to stay in power.

  37. brdavis9 Says:

    This seems, umm, enlighteningly relevant (from the Houston Herald).

    Weiner cooperating with the FBI

    Recall the scene from like every-crime-show-script-ever-written where the perp’ turns informant and enters Witness Protection to give the cops a bigger, better prize?

    Yeah. Me too.

    And that’s my example of “wildly speculatin'”, baddabing.

  38. Cornhead Says:


    You need to think like a criminal and assume the worse about the Clintons and their cronies. Foreign governments and big corporations paid them millions. They got value for their money. Hillary ordered Mills and Kendall to destroy 33k of the worst. Evidence of crimes there. And obstruction of justice.

    Please read Harvard lawyer John Hinderaker’s latest at Power Line. I agree 100%. I posted a comment on Althouse a few days ago along those lines. Sex and revenge.

    The sex part of the Weiner revenge theory is that Huma and Hillary have been lovers for years. Her marriage to Weiner was a sham; just like Hillary’s is to Bill. She cut him off from sex and he publically complained. Unlike Bill, he mishandled his affairs. Twitter was a mistake.

    Carlos Danger is at the bottom of this. He’s taking them all down. He has lost his political career and is looking at federal prison. Revenge.

  39. AesopFan Says:

    Geoffrey Britain Says:
    October 30th, 2016 at 9:06 pm

    From your lips to God’s ears. That said, God rarely saves people from themselves. Many Americans are determined to commit civilizational suicide. Though hardly unique as history is filled with peoples who destroyed themselves.
    * * *
    We had two very clear chances before this one to reject Leftist destruction of America (although you would have to be willing to be labeled racist to do so openly).
    God can be very long-suffering and patient with the temporally ignorant and the spiritually humble; with the willing rebels and the proud, not so much.

  40. AesopFan Says:

    GB: meant to include this link for you
    “…Our entire civilization is in a great crisis, one that has been creeping up on us for decades. And that crisis is laying bare flaws in our conservative thinking that we have left unattended for too long. The flaws aren’t about failing to accept cultural Marxism and its prejudicial tropes (like “ethnic diversity,” used as a bell-ringer for implied guilt). The flaws are about failing to reject and defeat cultural Marxism. Its proper end is on the ash heap of history. Yet conservatives are paralyzed by being in thrall to it. We fix that, or we perish.”

  41. sdferr Says:

    “. . .a bigger, better prize.”

    That’s the idea, alright. In this instance, however, the actual top prize just happens to be not Mrs. Clinton, but the untouchable king of the heap himself, PresidentPseudonym (by the way, ever consider that the first time PresidentPseudonym e-mailed Mrs. Clinton using his chosen pseudonym she had to have already been apprised as to what that was? Since otherwise, not recognizing it, she could have simply pitched the e-mail into a trash can). Now who would want to give him away as a prize? And worse, perhaps, who would want to take him as a prize?

  42. neo-neocon Says:


    I think you don’t understand my point.

    It’s not that I fail to have the imagination to imagine all sorts of things. I have no problem understanding what you’re getting at. I’ve even written fiction in my life; I know what imaginative stories are.

    I do have a problem, however, with why you state these things as though they are facts, as though they are anything other than sheer speculation at this point.

    All of these things—or at least, some of these things—may even end up being true. Who knows? YOU certainly don’t, nor do I.

    This isn’t about imagining a scenario, plausible or otherwise. It’s about what’s true and false, what is known and unknown at this point, and what sources you’re relying on to say something.

    And by the way, the phrase “Harvard lawyer” cuts absolutely no ice with me.

  43. AesopFan Says:

    Here is a companion piece to McCarthy’s article (one of many excellent ones he has written on the email scandal in general, and Comey in particular, from the standpoint of a prosecutor who has worked with the FBI).


  44. huxley Says:

    Cornhead: And I’ve heard the rumors that Weiner is in jeopardy for underage sex crimes beyond sexting a minor. Also that he is being cut out of visitation rights in his divorce.

    So, yeah, Weiner could be rolling over, but I wouldn’t bet it will matter much in President Hillary Clinton’s America.

    I don’t know what Powerline post you are referencing. The lastest from Hinderaker is just the usual NeverHillary stuff.

  45. Cornhead Says:

    Neo and Huxley.

    John Hinderaker is one of the sharpest persons I know and he got into Harvard on merit; unlike Obama. He practiced high stakes litigation at the highest level in this country. His post tonight does contain speculation but it is informed and reasoned speculation based upon his knowledge of the law and human nature. I have thought the same for days. Add in the sex aspect, and it all makes sense.

    Weiner was texting picture and lewd comments to young women. He is clearly unbalanced. And now he is ruined. Take them all down! What has he got to lose? Maybe he gets a show on Trump TV. Sharpton got a job at MSNBC.

    One last thing. LIfe in America has become a Tom Wolfe novel.

  46. Cornhead Says:

    Another part of the calculus. Weiner is a slight guy. Imagine him being in federal prison for texting nude pictures to young girls. The hard cases in the joint would brutalize him. He will do anything to stay out of jail.

    This is all a Mob-like thing. That’s the lens to view this through.

  47. neo-neocon Says:


    I am not saying I don’t respect Hinderaker. However his Harvard credentials are not among the reasons I respect him. Harvard doesn’t take away or add anything as far as I’m concerned, and that has nothing to do with Obama.

    However, although I respect Hinderaker that doesn’t mean I always agree with him.

    What’s more, as I’ve said several times, it’s not speculation that bothers me. It’s that you were saying these things as though they were proven facts rather than mere speculation and rumors.

  48. OM Says:


    Geoffrey would call your argument “appeal to authority,” and you are speculating and trying to bolster your argument by citing said authority. He is speculating and you are blowing smoke. Time will tell. 🙂

  49. huxley Says:

    Cornhead: Which specific Hinderaker article? I glanced through the blog and didn’t see anything which struck me as special in this regard.

  50. Cornhead Says:



    And John has endorsed Trump. Reluctantly.

  51. Cornhead Says:


    Just watch. Limbaugh will cite Hinderaker tomorrow. Trump will make the same argument in speeches this week. The undecided break to Trump. Bernie people stay home. She doesn’t get 95% of a diminished black vote. It’s over except for the crying on CNN and MSNBC.

  52. parker Says:


    You need to seek shallow water, you have wandered into the deep and you have a serious case of the bends. Surface very slowly and then gradually rejoin life on the surface. This is friendly advice.

  53. parker Says:

    BTW, Cornhead, if your predictions prove to be accurate, the donald should create a new cabinet position titled The Official Cassandra.

  54. Mike K Says:

    whatever Hillary may have done they think Trump is worse in every way.

    Those are hardly “Middle of the road.”

    I know you are a NeverTrumper but there has t be some sense of reality.
    The Clinton Crime Family is unprecedented in American history. We have become Argentina.

    I agree the election is a poisoned chalice as I expect a crash in the next four years but Trump has his own fortune and will be less hurt than traditional politicians.

  55. neo-neocon Says:

    Mike K:

    You are incorrect in your first two statements.

    I know people like that who are absolutely middle of the road, and some of them would have considered voting for almost any other GOP candidate running except Trump (and perhaps Cruz; they were not keen on Cruz).

    So your first error is saying they’re not middle of the road.

    Your second one is saying I’m a NeverTrumper. I have made it crystal clear that I’m not a NeverTrumper every time anyone says I am, and in just about all my relevant posts.

    You need to get a sense of reality yourself.

  56. Bill Says:

    “And John has endorsed Trump. Reluctantly.”

    Of course.

    The most bizarre thing about this election is no one will admit to being all-in for Trump.

    Can a candidate win when so many people are (or are at least claiming to be) holding their nose and voting for the evil of two lessers?

    Maybe a lot of women, millennials and minorities will flip over into the Trump column after hearing of the reopened investigation. Because you can’t win an election without those three groups having at least critical mass on the “pro” side. Right?

    This is a bizarre election – none of the CW holds.

    Trump has at least two active lawsuits against him – the Trump U one and the one about him violently raping one of Epstein’s 13 year old sex slaves – I think there’s a court date or status session on that one in December (after the election).

    Hillary has her ongoing well-known legal troubles, of course. I guess the idea for both of them is if they win the election and these things go away.

    Everything is so unprecedented this year.

    “Just watch. Limbaugh will cite Hinderaker tomorrow.”

    Of course he will. Limbaugh’s audience is a bunch of ditto-heads who already believe what he believes. Do you really think there’s a bunch of undecideds listening to him?

  57. Richard Saunders Says:

    It seems to me there are three possibilities, in increasing order of probability:

    1. FBI agents investigating Weiner genuinely discovered the e-mails just days ago and Comey felt duty-bound to disclose it;

    2. Comey is genuinely concerned that Trump might win and that he would be impeached for taking a dive for the Clintons;

    3. Comey was receiving such pressure from inside and outside the FBI that he feared his and the agency’s reputation would be ruined if he didn’t resuscitate it.

    October has one more day to run. Can there be a November surprise?

    Assuming Cornhead is wrong and the e-mails are not Huma and Weiner’s Life Insurance, it means that Huma and the Evil Empress exchanged e-mails, some of which undoubtedly “relate to the national defense” onto a laptop which was not only not secure, but which was shared with a pedophile. That’s a guaranteed felony if Trump is elected.

    If Trump is elected, however, Barry will undoubtedly pardon Hillary, Huma, Cheryl, Doug, and the rest of the Merry Grifters before he leaves office. If Hillary is elected, there will be no indictments at the statute of limitations (10 years) will lapse.

  58. Frog Says:

    I think Cornhead’s speculations have equal merit to Neo’s denials of same. Speculation is where we’re at.
    Sometimes I sense Neo thinks we are responding only to her and not to the larger readership group here. One or two (tops) rebuttals from you are all that are needed, Neo, not a running argument.

  59. Bill Says:

    “One or two (tops) rebuttals from you are all that are needed, Neo, not a running argument.”

    Well, it is her blog . . .

    We’ve been spending months on this site, wildly and repeatedly and ad-nauseumly rebutting each other with the same arguments over and over and over. And you want to put a two-rebuttal limit on the blog’s host?

    Weren’t taught manners as a kid? Or like everything else, does being a fan of Trump just ruin a person?

  60. Bill Says:

    “I think Cornhead’s speculations have equal merit to Neo’s denials of same.”

    No they don’t. He’s throwing out rumors that don’t seem to have any basis in fact. She’s trying to get to whatever “there” is there.

    Regarding statements of fact in an election cycle – I’ve learned before taking anything as truth to do some research. It’s like the breathless reports of malfunctioning voting machines in a specific county that were placing democratic votes in place of R votes.

    I dug into it and discovered that there was a circle of Pro-Trump sites sharing that particular story and it appeared to originate at Breitbart (now way!). The actual election site of the county in question had no mention of it. When I questioned the story, the story-relater had already moved on to the next breathless outrage about how the election is rigged. They had done their duty – say something untrue that helped their favored candidate and trust that hardly anyone would check out the factual basis.

    On that note – from a friend of mine who voted yesterday: “if you’re going to vote for a write-in candidate don’t be intimidated by the fact that there is no “/” on the keyboard and go ahead and vote however you choose. Also, don’t let the poll workers who hover over you and say “your vote is going to be a waste, if there is no slash on the keyboard then just vote for one of the ACTUAL candidates” bother you either.

    She was writing in McMullin and I think she thought she had to put a “/” and write Nathan Johnson or Mindy Finn for the VP slot (you don’t have to).

    Some poll watcher was hovering over her and then tried to get her to switch to a “real” candidate. Not sure if it was a Hillary thug or a Trump thug.

    No vote is a waste.

  61. parker Says:


    Most are not fans of the donald. They see only an endless dark tunnel but any light they imagine that they see is the destruction of the trump train. I can sympathize, but resist their nihilistic impulses. Everything in their rational is based upon ‘ if and but’. iMO slim picking, yet I grok their desperate desire.

    I will, as stated many times, vote for the deranged asshole if its close in my state, simply because a deranged asshole is a lesser evil than the Shrew Queen. Always vote your conscience.

  62. junior Says:

    I will, as stated many times, vote for the deranged asshole if its close in my state, simply because a deranged asshole is a lesser evil than the Shrew Queen. Always vote your conscience.

    That was pretty much Cruz’s argument.

    As for the new e-mails, the only effect that they might have at this point is to sway some lightly committed voters. It’s too close to the election for word on the contents to get out and influence the vote. So if Hillary wins, the best case scenario from this is a Watergate-style affair that gets her out of office a couple of very long years from now. That would be ironic, imo, because her first big public job was helping the Watergate committee, and she was thrown off of it for breaking the law.

  63. Chester Draws Says:

    Hillary’s supporters have already discounted the e-mails. Her poor behaviour isn’t exactly news.

    Trump’s are just crazed that somehow they are running a crime syndicate. (The Clintons have got a long way to go before they get close to the Tammany Hall era, so don’t give me that “it’s the most corrupt EVAH” bull.)

    In between are those that will decide the election. What will it do for them? I suspect that the allegations will, due to their unbelievable vagueness, actually work in Hillary’s favour. It looks like a cheap attempt to take her down by slur, with no actual new evidence produced.

    Actual smoking gun, and she might lose. A new enquiry, not so much.

    Remember all the people up in arms that the murder of Jo Cox just before the Brexit vote would swing it to Remain? Yeah, we forget so fast!

    Hillary to win in a romp.

  64. CW Says:

    Let me see if I have this right. We should vote for Hillary because having a woman president is unprecedented, and it’s okay that Secretary Hillary had a private server in her basement even though that was unprecedented, but Comey’s update to congress on re-opening the investigation is bad because it’s……………..unprecedented. Got it!

  65. Sergey Says:

    These events are perfect plot for a criminal drama like “Godfather” and “All the King’s Men” combined. Life again imitates art in true spirit of Greek tragedy.

  66. Sergey Says:

    And if a small portion of rumors about suspicious death of Bill and Hillary associates are true, throw in a bit of “Macbeth”.

  67. Sergey Says:

    And the Birnam wood has moved.

  68. Big Maq Says:

    “I might not be as rigged as I thought! – trump

    Laughable, if it weren’t so sad that the master rigger is claiming the system rigged to his adoring fans.

    Sure hopes this puts to bed the idea that Comey is a dem lackey.

    Was there any doubt BOTH candidates were awful?

    This may energize some of the trump fan base, but will it be enough? Doubt so.

    trump’s ground game is woeful, so getting those votes will be a challenge.

    clinton would need to significantly lose voters, given her uber historic highs with women, but with a week left and the “news value” dissipates, without a “smoking gun”, much of this email scandal is already “baked in” as they say.

  69. expat Says:

    I am so sick of all the soundbites, spin, and speculation. We know a few things about both candidates: money is valued by both over decency; both claim to be for the little guy when neither knows any little guys; the media cares more about ratings and salaries than informing the public and most of them travel in the same circles; and the public doesn’t really care that much.

    Given all that, I am leaning toward Trump, mostly because he doesn’t have the Dem, feminist, black, media circles beind him and partly because he doesn’t care enough to bother himself with real issues. The latter means that he will have to turn things over to a new team, few of whom need him. They. in turn, will have to put his speeches on teleprompters and explain their positions to him in language a fourth grader can understand. It is true that he knows nothing about foreign policy, but I don’t think he will want to embarass himself so he may just shut up instead of starting a nuclear war.

    The country needs a bottom-up transformation. Trump may give us some room to permit this. Hillary will continue to trade ten thousand dollar deductibles for Sandra Fluke’s birth control pills.

  70. expat Says:

    BTW, I think the alt-right and radical Trumpsters will quiet down after the election. The will be disappointed that utopia doesn’t appear on Jan. 21 and will probably move to Colorado.

  71. Bill Says:


    If Trump wins the alt-right aren’t going to go away. Their white supremacist, xeonophobic, anti Semitic brutal philosophy will have been vindicated and they will be carried to power along with their orange patron saint.

  72. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “IF Trump wins, his AG will do it or appoint a special prosecutor. Drain the swamp.” Cornhead

    Optimistic naivete is rarely rewarded. Rats fight when cornered. Trump is a ‘deal’ maker not a revolutionary. Truly ‘draining the swamp’ would require a revolutionary.

    “Geoffrey would call your argument “appeal to authority,” OM

    It’s certainly an appeal to authority but objectively so, rather than because I might ‘choose’ to label it as such. To be accurate, an appeal to authority must fulfill certain conditions, it must have objective support. That is the case here because Hinderaker offers no facts supporting his speculation, thus Cornhead’s citing of Hinderaker’s speculation is indeed an appeal to an authority based solely upon Hinderaker being in Cornhead’s judgement, very smart and astute.

    Where IMO, Cornhead and Hinderaker err is in their conclusion that this will be sufficient for Hillary to lose. Direct, unimpeachable and shocking evidence is needed to lead liberals to refrain from voting for her. Under no circumstances will they vote for Trump.

  73. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    neo-neocon 12:14 am,

    That only some of the “middle of the road” liberals you mention would even reluctantly consider voting for a constitutionalist like Sen. Cruz… arguably reveals just where the “middle of the road” lies for such as they.

    Richard Saunders at 12:38 am,

    Door # 2… Comey is covering his ass.

  74. expat Says:

    They won’t go away but they will get less space on blog comments.

  75. Frog Says:

    Bill sez the alt-right has a “white supremacist, xeonophobic [sic], anti Semitic brutal philosophy”.

    Coarse, vulgar, self-righteous is Bill.

  76. Sergey Says:

    The alt-right refers to those who identify with an anti-establishment segment of the right-wing and conservative political movements within the United States. What portion of them actually are anti-semitic or xenophobic rather than just object mass immigration on economic or security grounds is everybody’s guess.

  77. Artfldgr Says:

    The NY Post explains where FBI originally dropped the ball when they first investigated Abedin:

    Skeptical agents showed Abedin three separate email exchanges she had with an IT staffer regarding the operation of the private Clinton server during Clinton’s tenure at State. Abedin claimed she “did not recall” the email exchanges.

    So if you believe Abedin, she didn’t know the private clintonemail.com server that hosted her huma@clintonemail.com account even existed until she heard about it in the news. Comey was a believer; he didn’t even bother to call her back for further questioning. Case closed.

    But Abedin’s role in this caper begs for fresh scrutiny. Making false statements to a federal agent is a felony. So is mishandling classified information.

    By forwarding classified emails to her personal email account and printing them out at home, Abedin appears to have violated a Classified Information NonDisclosure Agreement she signed at the State Department on Jan. 30, 2009, in which she agreed to keep all classified material under the control of the US government.

    [yet somehow, people THIS dirty and THIS stupid are supposed to be the BEST future of the united states as the kids and socialists see it… you think their kids getting a billion dollars for producing nothing will help income inequality as it did in venezuela… at least the billionaire child of chavez is doing ok… ]

  78. Artfldgr Says:

    How are polls conducted?
    Typically, the customer contacts the polling organization and places an order for a poll, specifying what questions are to be asked, when the poll will be conducted, how many people will be interviewed, and how the results will be presented. The pollster then hires a call center to call the agreed upon number of people and, ask them the questions. Some call centers use computers to make the calls and ask the questions, with the respondent keying in the answers. Usually, the interview begins with easy questions to assure the respondent that he or she is not going to be embarrassed. For example: “I am going to read you the names of some well-known political figures. For each one, please tell me if you have a favorable, neutral, or unfavorable opinion of that person.” Then the names of well-known figures such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, etc. are read. The answers are typed into a computer as they are received. When each interviewer has the requisite number of valid interviews, he or she transmits the results to the pollster. The pollster then weights the various demographic categories to make sure there are enough men, enough retirees, enough Democrats, enough Catholics, enough college graduates, and so on. The pollster prepares a final report, breaking down the results by age, gender, income, education, political party, and other ways. The more people called, the more accurate the poll, but the more expensive it is. For state polls, 500-1000 valid interviews are typical (but it may require calling 10 times these numbers to get 500-1000 valid interviews).


    How does the pollster decide who to call?
    All polls are based on the idea of a random sample. Two methods are used to get the sample. The first is called RDD (Random Digit Dialing) in which the pollster carefully chooses an area code and prefix (together, the first six digits of a telephone number) and then picks the next four digits at random.
    [edited for length by n-n]

  79. Artfldgr Says:

    So polls done by human beings are more reliable?
    Not so fast. They have problems, too. Nearly all pollsters outsource the actual calling to third parties who run call centers or use freelancers. These actual callers are part-timers who are poorly trained and hardly motivated. They may have strong accents, mispronounce words, chew gum, read too fast or too slow, or get tired. In some cases, they have been known to make up all the answers without calling anyone at all, a practice known as “curbstoning,” something no pollster wants to talk about, except the robopollsters, whose computers have never been caught curbstoning. [no, they select numbers in known areas that favor the answers they want so that the people paying for the poll come back.. ie. you make more money gamiong the poll in favor of the csutomers, than being accurate]

    Can a poll be conducted over the internet?
    Some companies, especially YouGov, have begun pioneering with Internet polls, usually by asking people to sign up. Obviously the sample is anything but random. Also people can lie, but they can lie on telephone polls, too. Careful normalization can remove the sampling bias. [no, it cant… thats mathematically wrong, because you cant remove a bias that is not constistent and results in outcomes for which you have no known refererence to know what it should be, so the practice just corrects polls to the wrong answers that favor being rehired]
    [edited for length by n-n]

  80. neo-neocon Says:


    What in Bill’s characterization that you quoted about the alt-right (“white supremacist, xeonophobic [sic], anti Semitic brutal philosophy”) do you find “Coarse, vulgar, self-righteous”?

    I understand that you may disagree with his characterization of the alt-right. (I actually agree with what Bill said in the sense that, having studied the alt-right, there is little question in my mind that a vocal proportion of the alt-right can be properly described in exactly that way, although how large or small that segment is is unknown.)

    Perhaps you think the portion is insignificant. But I fail to see how you could think that what Bill wrote there is either “coarse, vulgar, or self-righteous.” Is it vulgar to call certain people who are in fact and self-admittedly (and proudly!) white supremacist, xenophobic, and anti-Semitic by those terms? Does it imply that the speaker is self-righteous to merely describe them that way?

    Or are you objecting to an assumption you think Bill is making about their numbers and influence in the Trump campaign? That might indeed be a valid objection to try to make, but I fail to see what accusations of vulgarity or coarseness have to do with it.

  81. Ross Tullis Says:

    xpat Says:
    …in language a fourth grader can understand.

    A graduate of the Wharton School of Business and flies around in his own 757 come on come on

  82. Big Maq Says:

    “What in Bill’s characterization that you quoted about the alt-right (“white supremacist, xeonophobic [sic], anti Semitic brutal philosophy”) do you find “Coarse, vulgar, self-righteous”?” – Neo

    Might Senior Frog be taking Bill’s description too personally?

    IDK about the number of alt-r amongst the trump supporters, but if one finds Bill’s description problematic, they ought to find it rather problematic that trump caters just a little too much to the alt-r, dabbling in such themes during his campaign.

    This is the double edge sword that is trump, for his most vocal supporters, be they original or recent converts.

    Bill is correct – if trump wins, the alt-r supporting him surely gain in stature and power – and, will give more prominence to policies catering to those same themes.

    For a good long time, many conservatives have been trying to make the case for things like Border Security based on principle, not on xenophobic arguments / motivations the alt-r employ.

    If it hasn’t happened already, a trump victory would almost permanently conflate the two very different world views and ideas.

  83. Artfldgr Says:

    this just out.. your being played, and even a person in the industry who used to make $$ playing you, isnt believed… 🙂

    A man by the name of George Lindell has been exposed as the man behind the “Jew-S-A” chant a Trump rally in Phoenix, Arizona.

    He’s been found out to be the exact same man who appeared in the viral video interview, “Reality Hits You Hard Bro“.

    One Reddit user discredited the liberal media’s attacks on Trump supporters by making an irrefutable comparison chart.


    The tattoo pretty much ends the discussion — they are the same person. He’s simply trying to garner another 15 minutes of fame all while making Donald Trump supporters appear Anti-Semetic.

  84. sdferr Says:

    Re-Mulling (only a little) that Otto von Bismarck quote moments ago, it occurs to me to wonder what Adam Smith might have said to von Bismarck had he the occasion to respond?

    At a guess, I’d guess that Smith might say of those 19th Century Americans of whom von Bismarck was speaking: “Why yes, Otto, y’see? That’s a proof of my invisible hand at work, you Wissenshaftlicher Mensch, you. The Americans, unlike you puff-chested Deutsche Volk, haven’t thought they know every goddamned necessary thing there is to know, and so don’t set out to design it all — O great man of system. Let loose for a change: that just may serve you well.”

    If the contemporary Americans find that their providential fortune has run out, they too may discover that letting their currently adopted Germanic Idealistic tendencies fade will have a profound effect on their recovery of that former providential fortune. It isn’t rocket science, which is after all, stuff about machines. It’s rather more like an adherence to humanity itself.

    Can we see that idea expressed as: “Only I can solve!”?

    Well, anyhow, one may ponder that, and be doubtful of it.

  85. M J R Says:

    Bill, 12:37 am — “The most bizarre thing about this election is no one will admit to being all-in for Trump.”

    I know three people who are.

    One is a double-major mathematics -slash- electrical engineer type, in his sixties now. He has been all-in for The Donald from the get-go. His wife (mathematics B.S., computer science M.S.) had been for Cruz early on, but switched and has been all-in for Trump since last spring.

    Another is a military lawyer who lived across the street from me, who penned a very pro-Trump opinion piece that was published in the New York Post:


  86. neo-neocon Says:


    Who is the “you” who is being played?

    You may have noticed that I never wrote about that story at all. I often believe that such people are plants, and I had no interest in hyping that story on this blog.

    I don’t believe that anyone in the comments section here discussed it, either.

    So maybe you need to place your comment on some other blog where people were hyping it.

  87. Frog Says:

    Neo: Bill’s characterization reminds me of Hillary’s ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’. Inflammatory to True Believers.
    A few David Dukes do not mean lynchings have been renewed. The alt-right has been endowed by the PC crowd with power and numbers not reflective of reality.

    Xenophobia is the functional alternative to globalism. Globalism and the push for open borders are issues requiring critical re-examination, not brain-dead vitriol.
    “White supremacist, anti-Semitic, brutal” as characterizations are indeed coarse and vulgar in my ethos and lexicon, tainted with PC. You know it and I know it.

  88. Frog Says:

    “What Donald Trump represents isn’t crazy, and it’s not going away,” he [Peter Thiel, a gay conservative billionaire] said during a speech at the National Press Club today.

  89. neo-neocon Says:


    I know that those are coarse and vulgar? No, I don’t know any such thing. What an odd definition of coarse and vulgar.

    You may indeed think they’re incorrect, unfair, hyperbolic, inappropriate, or similar descriptive words. But coarse and vulgar? Not only don’t I know it, I don’t even understand what you’re trying to say.

    Coarse and vulgar usually means expletives, sexually risque words, bathroom appellations, gutter language, that sort of thing. PC language may be offensive to you in other ways, but coarse and vulgar it usually is not.

    Plus, “anti-Semitic” and “xenophobic” are not PC if they are true descriptions of someone’s point of view. There are many alt-right activists who should be described that way. How on earth else to describe them? It seems to me that you are objecting to completely inoffensive language, because sometimes words like “xenophobic” are used when they are not descriptive.

    I’ve even written about that sort of incorrect usage, here. But it’s neither coarse nor vulgar.

    Unlike Humpty Dumpty, you can’t make words mean what YOU want them to.

  90. Sergey Says:

    In PC world “xenophobic” is everybody who prefers company of members of his own tribe to anybody else, which is about 99% of population. Not very informative descriptor. Or, alternatively, everybody who object uncontrolled mass immigration, and this refers to almost all Trump supporters.

  91. Frog Says:

    “Coarse” means crude, the opposite of fine.
    “Vulgar” means tasteless, crass, kitsch.
    Neither word has sexual overtones as an essence of their meaning.
    “Tainted with PC” means what it says. Xenophobic is the opposite of Diversity. Brutal is a pantywaist complaint.

  92. neo-neocon Says:


    Definition of “coarse” includes: “vulgar; obscene; crude.”

    Definition of “vulgar” includes: “indecent; obscene; lewd.”

    Those are not the least bit obscure, either, in terms of meanings for those two words. In fact, they are very common, and are understood to be what people often mean when they use those words, in common usage and parlance anyway.

    If you have been living in this country, you are aware of that, too.

    When a person calls someone’s statement “coarse and vulgar,” that person does NOT ordinarily mean the statement was coarse as opposed to fine, as one would describe coarse sand. Nor does that person ordinarily mean tasteless or kitschy (nor, by the way, would Bill’s useless of the words fit that definition, either, although that’s beside the point. However, here’s a post I wrote about kitsch and politics).

  93. Big Maq Says:

    While Frog gets bent out of shape and offended by Bill saying that some trump supporters are who they are, let me ask MJR if he’s wanting to start a p*ssing contest on how smart are the trump supporters he knows… let’s just say if that is his best, well then, no contest at all.

    Fact is, trump original (and many hard core converts) supporters come from all walks of life. We cannot say they are exclusively from one part of society or another. We CAN say that a large number are lower educated white elder males, as being statistically true. Doesn’t mean we cannot find young black or latino, ivy league millenials who support trump. Just means it is relatively rare in comparison.

    Re: Bill’s all in comment – I’ve noticed it too, some who are a little too vociferous here and elsewhere in their support of trump, but they still want to differentiate themselves from the “original” trump supporters. Don’t know what they expect from making that declaration, but if they are employing many of the same kinds of arguments as the originals, that is no differentiation at all.

  94. M J R Says:

    Big Maq, 10:09 pm — “While Frog gets bent out of shape and offended by Bill saying that some trump supporters are who they are, let me ask MJR if he’s wanting to start a p*ssing contest on how smart are the trump supporters he knows… let’s just say if that is his best, well then, no contest at all.”

    They’re plenty smart, Maq. They’re very good at their professions, too.

    Their perception of what’s good and fitting for USA does differ from yours — as does mine.

    I see no need to question someone’s “smart”ness, should their world view not match up with mine. I do, however, question their judgment with respect to points where they and I differ. (After all, if I did not question it, that would imply that my world view and theirs actually coincide at those points where we in fact do differ.)

    Y’know, Bill observed that “the most bizarre thing about this election is no one will admit to being all-in for Trump.” I pointed to three examples. It happens. It *ought* to be non-controversial, speaking of “p*ssing contests”. But I see no need at all to get into one with you.

    And that applies to “let’s just say if that is his best, well then, no contest at all.” The snark is totally unnecessary. Dial it back, will ya? I’d much rather we remain friendly.

  95. Bill Says:

    M J R

    I didn’t express myself well – I know there are plenty of people all-in for Trump. I meant in these comments threads. Even then I was being hyperbolic because we have at least 2 or 3 who seem to have supported him from at least early on. My point was even the most enthusiastic commenters urging us to vote for Trump have had a tendency to first caveat their comment with “I was a Cruz supporter early on” or “Trump was my fourth choice” or some such. I’ve never seen an election like this where a significant portion of the electorate are voting against someone rather than for them.

    Frog – I stand by my characterization of the alt-right.

    One week to go…. I heard a worst case today (Allahpundit tweeted) where the candidates both tie at 269 EVs, Florida has a recount which ends up going to the Supreme Court. Which deadlocks at 4-4.

  96. Frog Says:

    Neo, I am as much of a grammarian as you. When I hear coarse and vulgar, I do not automatically think “below the waist”. You apparently do, or make it seem that you do.
    “Fine” and “Coarse” in this context does not mean it is about the different sizes of grains of sand, but rather of taste (judgment), culture.

  97. Bill Says:

    Frog – again, I stand by my characterization of the alt-right.

    If we can’t call this kind of stuff out, we can’t call anything out.

    Just five minutes or so looking through my timeline I saw these two gems.

    1. A picture of Evan McMullin with stars of davids photoshopped all over his face and the text: “The jew Mormon spook that got us into the ISIS mess is going to get us out of Syria. Please. ”

    2. Here’s one from DJT’s good friend Roger Stone: “@AdamPlatt1999 @BenCisco in view of the fact that your names doesn’t sound even vaguely Jewish I’d say you’re a lying sack of sh*t.”

    The GOP is tolerating this. They are dead to me.

  98. neo-neocon Says:


    It’s not about what I think when I hear the words.

    It’s about the usual, ordinary, vernacular usage of the words, what most people would think if hearing the words in the context in which you used them.

    Communication is about using words in a commonly accepted way and trying to be clear about what you mean. If you mean to use them in a way that wouldn’t spring to the mind of most people, then make that clear. But even more than that, if you haven’t made that clear, don’t deny the other meanings that are very commonly inherent in the word.

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge