"The Clintons are likely to be asked why, long after Maxwell had been publicly accused of trafficking girls with Epstein in 2009, she was still welcome at events with the couple."

"In 2010, Maxwell attended the wedding of the Clintons’ daughter, Chelsea, and in 2013 was a guest at the Clinton Global Initiative conference. The former president Clinton also attended a dinner with Maxwell in Los Angeles as late as 2014, according to reports.... Speaking to Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney-general, Maxwell said Bill was 'my friend, not Epstein’s friend.' She said: 'President Clinton liked me, and we got along terribly well. But I never saw that warmth with Mr Epstein.'"

From "The questions Bill and Hillary Clinton need to answer about Epstein files
The couple will be questioned, starting on Thursday, over pictures with the paedophile and emails to Ghislaine Maxwell. What will they have to explain?" (London Times).

"For almost the entirety of her married life, she has had to answer questions about her husband’s action."

"She has supported him throughout. There is no reason for her to have to suffer this last indignity. She has nothing to do with it. It is infuriating. She is a global icon, a trailblazer for women. It is heartbreaking that she has to do this."

Said Patti Solis Doyle, a former top aide to Hillary Clinton, quoted in "For Hillary Clinton, an Epstein Deposition Is the Latest ‘Stand by Your Man’ Moment/The former first lady, senator and secretary of state had no dealings with Jeffrey Epstein but is once again under pressure to answer for the actions and relationships of her husband" (NYT).

Should "a trailblazer for women" vouch for a man who has abused women? But maybe what Hillary knows is that no abuse was involved within Bill's relationship to Jeffrey.

Mr. Clinton had a relationship with Mr. Epstein years before Mr. Epstein’s sex crimes conviction. The former president took four trips on Mr. Epstein’s private jet in 2002 and 2003 and appears in photographs in the files released by the Justice Department. But Mrs. Clinton did not. She has said that she “cannot recall ever speaking to Epstein,” and that she met Ghislaine Maxwell, his longtime associate, only a few times. During the period when Mr. Clinton was building the Clinton Global Initiative and interacting with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, Mrs. Clinton “was busy being a U.S. senator,” said Ms. Doyle, who worked for her at the time. “She was not involved.”

I wonder if the members of Congress will be satisfied with the assertion that to be a member of Congress is to be too busy to get into mischief. 

Politico chooses the photograph with the blue dress.

Link.

"'No reasonable prosecutor': remember him? He’s back! No, not James 'Higher Loyalty' Comey. He’s sitting in a corner somewhere..."

"... counting his doubloons. But like some inky creatures of the deep, he emitted lots of spawn. They’re maturing now and taking after dear old dad. Remember the original sitcom. Despite the best efforts of every one from the country’s 'intelligence' chiefs to its fawning media, news emerged that Hillary Clinton had essentially run the State Department from an insecure server in her home. On that server, it transpired, there were thousands of classified documents (along, of course, with yoga routines and plans for her daughter’s wedding). Presented with a subpoena to turn in the classified docs — there were some 30,000 of them. Hillary simply BleachBit the lot and dared Comey to do something about it. He didn’t, of course. 'No reasonable prosecutor,' you see would pursue such a case. Now James Comey’s spiritual heir has strode into the limelight. Meet Robert Hur...."

Writes Roger Kimball, in "The Justice Department won’t prosecute Biden? Color me shocked/Don’t we have trials precisely to establish the guilt or innocence of a defendant?" (The Spectator).

"The indictment also showcased the bedrock elements of the former president’s personality: his sense of bombast and vengeance..."

"... his belief that everything he touches belongs to him and his admiration of people for their underhanded craftiness and gamesmanship with the authorities. It recounts, for instance, how Mr. Trump had only praise for an unnamed aide to Hillary Clinton who — at least in his narration of the story — helped Mrs. Clinton destroy tens of thousands of emails from a private server. 'He did a great job,' the indictment quotes Mr. Trump as telling one of his lawyers. Why? Because, in Mr. Trump’s account, the aide ensured that Mrs. Clinton 'didn’t get in any trouble.'"

Write Alan Feuer and Maggie Haberman in "Indictment Presents Evidence Trump’s Actions Were More Blatant Than Known/The accounts in the 49-page indictment provide compelling evidence of a shocking indifference toward some of the country’s most sensitive secrets" (NYT).

"The former FBI director, who has been teaching and speaking on government ethics, joined others in celebrating the upcoming arrest of Trump because nothing says 'ethical leadership' like a patently political prosecution."

Blogs — scoffs — Jonathan Turley.

Comey declined to prosecute Hillary Clinton on her email scandal despite finding that she violated federal rules and handled classified material “carelessly.” He declared, “Ethical leaders lead by seeing above the short term, above the urgent or the partisan, and with a higher loyalty to lasting values, most importantly the truth.” 

Yet now Comey is heralding the effort of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who campaigned on a pledge of bagging Trump for some unspecified crime.... 

The Washington Post fact-checker checks "Hillary Clinton’s claim that ‘zero emails’ were marked classified."

Here's Glenn Kessler (who does not assign Pinocchios on this one)(the boldface is mine):

During the contest between Trump and Clinton, we wrote 16 fact checks on the email issue, frequently awarding Pinocchios to Clinton for legalistic parsing. But in light of the Trump investigation, Clinton is trying to draw a distinction between Trump’s current travails and the probe that targeted her.... 

Clinton, in her tweet, suggests none of her emails were marked classified. That’s technically correct. Whether those emails contained classified information was a major focus of the investigation, but a review of the recent investigations, including new information obtained by the Fact Checker, shows Clinton has good reason for making a distinction with Trump. 

"There can't be one rule for Democrats and another for Republicans. So the question 'What about her emails?' is an appropriate one."

"Mocking it is no answer. Neither is the cliche 'two wrongs do not make a right.' A second wrong doesn't justify or excuse the first, but unequal treatment of two comparable wrongs should raise concerns about fairness and equality. Unequal treatment of two equal wrongs is a third wrong. The 'whataboutism' argument applies as well to the manner in which Trump loyalists such as Peter Navarro, Roger Stone and Paul Manafort were arrested. In comparable cases involving similar charges, the defendants weren't handcuffed, shackled or subjected to restraints generally reserved for those who pose a risk of violence or flight.... It is often argued that presidents aren't above the law, but neither are they beneath deserving fair treatment, as Bill Clinton can attest.... Just as [Hillary's] actions don't excuse Mr. Trump's, his don't excuse hers.... [U]ntil Mr. Garland fully and specifically answers the hard questions about what appears to be unequal application of rules and practices, 'what about her emails?' will be a pertinent question."

 Writes Alan Dershowitz, in "'But Her Emails'? A Defense of 'Whataboutism'"/Mrs. Clinton should take her hat off. Treating like cases alike is crucial to the equal protection of the law" (Wall Street Journal).

I haven't used my "Hillary's in trouble" tag in a while.

...Of course, Clinton has pushed for state and corporate censorship while demanding a “global reckoning” with those who spread disinformation. Yet, while her campaign lawyer could be convicted, the Clintons have long avoided any personal "reckoning" in a long line of scandals.

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 21, 2022

"My Democratic colleagues would have rightfully objected to Republicans – when they controlled Congress – using the impeachment power to disqualify former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from running for president in 2016 because of her email controversy."

Said Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), voting against tabling a motion to dismiss the articles of impeachment. 

Here's the full statement — a press release, which I received as email:

On January 6, I said voting to reject the states’ electors was a dangerous precedent we should not set. Likewise, impeaching a former President who is now a private citizen would be equally unwise. The impeachment power can be turned into a political weapon, especially if it is primarily used to disqualify an individual citizen from running for public office. My Democratic colleagues would have rightfully objected to Republicans – when they controlled Congress – using the impeachment power to disqualify former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from running for president in 2016 because of her email controversy. The great hallmark of our Democratic Republic is self-government, and I have faith in the American people to assess the qualifications of presidential candidates and make an informed decision themselves, just as they have done every four years since George Washington was elected as our first president. Congress should not dictate to the American people who they can and cannot vote for.

In support of that argument, it's extremely important to remember that there is a "fundamental principle of our representative democracy . . . 'that the people should choose whom they please to govern them.'" I'm quoting the Supreme Court case rejecting term limits for members of Congress, which was quoting a case about Congress's power to exclude someone the people have elected. The internal quote — "the people should choose whom they please to govern them" — comes from Alexander Hamilton, arguing in favor of ratifying the Constitution:

"Democrats and the media are turning the AG into a villain for doing his duty and making the hard decisions that special counsel Robert Mueller abdicated."

"Mr. Barr's Wednesday testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee was preceded late Tuesday by the leak of a letter Mr. Mueller had sent the AG on March 27. Mr. Mueller griped in the letter that Mr. Barr's four-page explanation to Congress of the principal conclusions of the Mueller report on March 24 'did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance' of the Mueller team's 'work and conclusions.' Only in Washington could this exercise in posterior covering be puffed into a mini-outrage. Democrats leapt on the letter as proof that Mr. Barr was somehow covering for Donald Trump when he has covered up nothing.... Mr. Barr has since released the full Mueller report with minor redactions, as he promised, and with the 'context' intact. Keep in mind Mr. Barr was under no legal obligation to release anything at all. Mr. Mueller reports only to Mr. Barr, not to the country or Congress.... Contrast that to the abdication of Loretta Lynch, who failed as Barack Obama's last Attorney General to make a prosecutorial judgment about Hillary Clinton's misuse of classified information. Ms. Lynch cowered before the bullying of then FBI director James Comey, who absolved Mrs. Clinton of wrongdoing while publicly scolding her.... [The Democrats are] shouting and pounding the table against Bill Barr for acting like a real Attorney General."

From "A Real Attorney General/Bill Barr gets smeared for refusing to duck and cover like Loretta Lynch" by the Editorial Board at The Wall Street Journal.

Mueller's name is quickly disappearing from the pages of mainstream media.

Sometimes one letter at a time....



I've noticed that The Washington Post and The New York Times have practically scrubbed the name Mueller from their pages. Over at New York Magazine, they're changing the focus to Hillary and they've pared his name down to "Muller." What happened to the "e"? Maybe it's gone the way of Hillary's e-mail.

Can you believe they're pushing the problem of those crazy Republicans who can't let go of their Hillary hatred? The story is the insane vortex of hatred for Donald Trump that caused a bizarre hoax to preoccupy the country for 2 years. I want responsibility taken for this hoax. If Hillary Clinton was part of what happened, we need to look straight at it (and not be scared off by the notion that it's an emotional problem, an "obsession").

"As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges."

A headline at The Hill.

Ukraine’s top prosecutor divulged in an interview aired Wednesday on Hill.TV that he has opened an investigation into whether his country’s law enforcement apparatus intentionally leaked financial records during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign about then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort in an effort to sway the election in favor of Hillary Clinton....

ADDED: It should say "As allegations of Russia collusion fades." The collusion didn't fade. There was no collusion. Apparently.

"Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page admitted... that 'the FBI was ordered by the Obama DOJ not to consider charging Hillary Clinton for gross negligence in the handling of classified information'..."

"... [Texas Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe] alleged in a social media post late Tuesday, citing a newly unearthed transcript of Page's closed-door testimony..... 'So let me if I can, I know I’m testing your memory,' Ratcliffe began as he questioned Page under oath, according to a transcript excerpt he posted on Twitter. 'But when you say advice you got from the Department, you’re making it sound like it was the Department that told you: You’re not going to charge gross negligence because we’re the prosecutors and we’re telling you we’re not going to —' Page interrupted: 'That is correct,' as Ratcliffe finished his sentence, ' -- bring a case based on that.' The document dump was part of a major release by House Judiciary Committee Republicans, who on Tuesday released hundreds of pages of transcripts from last year's closed-door interview with Page, revealing new details about the bureau's controversial internal discussions regarding an 'insurance policy' against then-candidate Donald Trump. Fox News has previously reviewed portions of Page's testimony."

Fox News reports today (about testimony from last summer).

Trump tweeted: "The just revealed FBI Agent Lisa Page transcripts make the Obama Justice Department look exactly like it was, a broken and corrupt machine. Hopefully, justice will finally be served. Much more to come!"

"Darling? Darling, is the wind blowing today? I'd like to watch television, darling."

I think this was the funniest 1 minute in Trump's 2-hour CPAC speech:



He's making fun of the Green New Deal.

"The Green New Deal. Or whatever the hell they call it." Pause. Suppressing a little smile and glancing around. "The Green New Deal. Right? The Green New Deal. I encourage it. I think it's really something that they should promote." Pause. "They should work hard on. Something our country needs desperately." Dramatic rising tone and silent fist pound on "desperately." "They have to go out and get it, but I'll take the other side of that argument, only because I'm mandated to. But they should stay with that argument. Never change." Pause, then quietly: "Never change." Long pause. "No planes. No energy. When the wind stops blowing, that's the end of your electric. Let's hurry up. Darling? Darling, is the wind blowing today? I'd like to watch television, darling."

So much sarcasm. Anyone not hearing the humor would be lost, but the crowd has no trouble absorbing every little edge of humor, and nearly every word and pause feels humorous to me. But if you like the Green New Deal, it's got to be horribly irritating, including the humor. Obviously, it's wrong to say that energy from a wind turbine flows into your house only while the wind is blowing, and you'd lose your mind if you believed that Trump doesn't realize that, but it's just as annoying if you think he knows that but he wants to get the fake science out there and he intends to hide behind a claim that it's just an exaggeration — a joke.

Here's Trump — also from yesterday's speech — trashing his antagonists for not getting his joking (or pretending not to get it):



"If you tell a joke, if you are sarcastic, if you're having fun with the audience, if you're on live television with millions of people and 25,000 people in an arena, and if you say something like 'Russia, please, if you can, get us Hillary Clinton's emails! Please, Russia, please! Please get us the emails! Please!'" The plea is exaggerated. He pauses for a long time an looks around, then starts up again, waving his hands about: "Please! Get us the emails! Please!" Pauses. Laughs. Notices the crowd is reacting with a "Lock her up" chant, which isn't quite absorbing his point, but maybe that's how they have fun, how they irritate their antagonists. He stretches out his hand to quiet them. "So everybody's having a good time, laughing, we're all having fun, and then that fake CNN and others say, 'He asked Russia to go get the emails. Horrible.' I mean, I saw it like 2 weeks ago. I'm watching, and they're talking about, 'One of the points, he asked Russia for the emails.' These people are sick. And I'm telling you, they know the game. They know the game. And they play it dirty. Dirtier than anybody's ever played the game. Dirtier than it's ever been played."

ADDED: A poll:

What's dirtier?

Using sarcasm then trashing people who quote you literally.

Presenting sarcastic statements as if they were intended as truth.

Both approaches are devious.

It's all rhetoric. It's just tough political speech. Not "dirty."

pollcode.com free polls

AND: Poll results:

"Trump Will Nominate William P. Barr as Attorney General."

The NYT reports.

President Trump on Friday said he intended to nominate William P. Barr, who served as attorney general during the first Bush administration from 1991 to 1993, to return as head of the Justice Department.

“He was my first choice since Day 1,” Mr. Trump told reporters as he walked from the White House to a helicopter for a trip to Kansas City, Mo.. “He’ll be nominated.”

This gets Whitaker out of the way. Confirm Barr, and you don't have to worry about Whitaker.

Here's a NYT article from yesterday about Barr:

Mr. Barr, a Republican and corporate lawyer, has long advanced a vision of sweeping presidential powers.... Mr. Barr has criticized aspects of the Russia investigation, including suggesting that the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, hired too many prosecutors who had donated to Democratic campaigns. Mr. Barr has also defended Mr. Trump’s calls for a new criminal investigation into his defeated 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton, including over a uranium mining deal the Obama administration approved when she was secretary of state.

"Former FBI Director James Comey 'deviated' from bureau and Justice Department procedures in handling the probe into Hillary Clinton, damaging the agencies’ image of impartiality..."

"... even though he wasn’t motivated by politics, the department’s watchdog found in a highly anticipated report. 'While we did not find that these decisions were the result of political bias on Comey’s part, we nevertheless concluded that by departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice,' Inspector General Michael Horowitz said in the report’s conclusions, which were obtained by Bloomberg News."

ADDED: The NYT reports:

[T]he report paints an unflattering picture of one of the most tumultuous periods in the 110-year history of the F.B.I.... The report criticizes the conduct of F.B.I. officials who exchanged texts disparaging Mr. Trump during the campaign. The officials, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, were involved in both the Clinton and Russia investigations, leading Mr. Trump’s supporters to suspect a conspiracy against him. Many of those text messages have been released, but the inspector general cites a previously undisclosed message in which Mr. Strzok says the F.B.I. “will stop” Mr. Trump, according to two of the officials.

The inspector general said that, because of his views, Mr. Strzok may have improperly prioritized the Russia investigation over the Clinton investigation during the final weeks of the campaign. The F.B.I. officials “brought discredit” to themselves and sowed public doubt about the investigation. But the report did not cite evidence that Mr. Strzok had acted improperly or influenced the outcome of the investigation, the officials said....

The findings sharply criticize the judgment of Mr. Comey....

ALSO: CNN:

The report from Inspector General Michael Horowitz concluded that the prosecutorial decisions in the Clinton case were "consistent" and not affected by bias or other improper actions. But it said that senior leaders' handling of the Clinton case cast a cloud over the bureau and did lasting damage to the FBI's reputation.

"The damage caused by these employees' actions extends far beyond the scope of the Midyear (Clinton) investigation and goes to the heart of the FBI's reputation for neutral factfinding and political independence," the report states.

A key finding: Comey erred in his decision not to coordinate with his superiors at the Justice Department at key moments in the Clinton email investigation. Horowitz said that Comey was "extraordinary and insubordinate," and did not agree with any of his reasons for deviating from "well-established Department policies.",,,

The report found that the Strzok and Page texts "cast a cloud" over the credibility of the investigation, although they found no evidence "that these political views directly affected the specific investigative decisions that we reviewed."...

The report faults Lynch for her meeting with Clinton on a Phoenix airport tarmac. But it says there was no evidence that Lynch and Clinton discussed the investigation into Hillary Clinton or any other inappropriate discussions.

"I recommend Althouse devote a post to the funniest Trump news I read today. Apparently Trump continues a practice from his pre-POTUS days..."

"... of tearing up many documents after he's through with them. To keep in compliance with federal law after failing to get Trump to listen to reason, a team of archivists armed with scotch tape reassembles them from the waste paper baskets. Making jobs for Americans!"

Said readering in last night's open thread. Is it true? Should I check? I don't want to see that it's not true!

Oh, it's true: "Meet the guys who tape Trump's papers back together/The president's unofficial 'filing system' involves tearing up documents into pieces, even when they're supposed to be preserved."

Under the Presidential Records Act, the White House must preserve all memos, letters, emails and papers that the president touches, sending them to the National Archives for safekeeping as historical records.

But White House aides realized early on that they were unable to stop Trump from ripping up paper after he was done with it and throwing it in the trash or on the floor, according to people familiar with the practice. Instead, they chose to clean it up for him, in order to make sure that the president wasn’t violating the law.

Legal ideas:

1. He should be impeached for this violation of law.

2. The law operates merely as a guideline because, technically, it violates Article II of the Constitution (and the President cannot be deprived of the power to process documents in his own style).

3. Good scenario for a law school exam.

Back to the article:

“We got Scotch tape, the clear kind,” [Solomon] Lartey recalled in an interview. “You found pieces and taped them back together and then you gave it back to the supervisor.” The restored papers would then be sent to the National Archives to be properly filed away.

Non-legal ideas: 

1. Is Scotch tape the proper substance for use in archival work?

2. Aren't there computer programs that would assemble an image of the document from a scan of the disassembled paper scraps?

3. The system of tearing up papers after you've dealt with them is actually a good one, generally, even if it's a problem for Trump to be using this practice in his presidential gig.

4. If Trump is going to be criticized for this, let's remember all the documents in the form of email that Hillary Clinton recklessly extremely carelessly destroyed.

5. What's the most interesting story you have about tearing up paper?

Key fact from the end of the article: The 2 men interviewed for this story were both talking to the press about their complaint that they were unfairly terminated from the jobs they are describing.

"I don’t remember spelling it out, but it had to have been, that she’s going to be elected president and if I hide this from the American people, she’ll be illegitimate the moment she’s elected, the moment this comes out."

"I don’t remember consciously thinking about that, but it must have been because I was operating in a world where Hillary Clinton was going to beat Donald Trump, and so I’m sure that it was a factor."

Said James Comey, talking to George Stephanopoulos on the occasion of the publication of “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership."

Must we talk about Hillary? Steve Wynn is worse. He's more like Harvey Weinstein.

The question of Hillary Clinton and sexual harassment came up on "Meet the Press" this morning. The moderator Chuck Todd began with a question based on the Ruth Marcus column I linked to — here — earlier this morning.

CHUCK TODD: All right. There was the reckoning, I guess is probably the best way to describe it, the reckoning. Right? We have a reckoning at the U.S.A. Gymnastics. Reckoning with the U.S. Olympic committee, that in itself. But then there's been more reckoning with Hillary Clinton, a little bit the story in the Times that in 2008 her campaign that somebody was accused of sexual harassment. Campaign manager wanted to fire this person. Hillary Clinton stepped in and said no. Ruth Marcus today just eviscerates Hillary Clinton on this and, Heather, says, "Why can't she admit that that was a mistake?

How unfortunate for Hillary to have her story break at the same time as the truly nightmarish gymnastics story! And yet I feel no pity for her. In my view, her behavior protecting Bill Clinton and suppressing his accusers set the sexual harassment cause back 20 years.

Todd's question goes to Heather McGhee, president of the liberal group Demos. Look how quickly she changes the subject:

HEATHER MCGHEE: I think that you're right. I think that Ruth Marcus is right that she should have just admitted that it was a mistake. Hillary Clinton has a very difficult history with men in power abusing their positions in terms of sexual abuse and harassment. I think that our desire to bring Hillary Clinton continually into the story is understandable. I think the bigger story right now is obviously what's going on in the U.S. Olympic committee. I think the Steve Wynn story is a huge one in terms of finance share of the RNC. And some of those stories are terrifying....

So, Hillary Clinton's "history" is "difficult," and we just have a problem — albeit an "understandable" one — of "continually" dragging Hillary Clinton into the story! News just broke about the sexual harasser she kept on her campaign. We're not obsessively going back to her old misdeeds.

But Todd lets McGhee shift to the other new story, Steve Wynn. He even muses: "Steve Wynn feels like the closest thing we've gotten to Harvey Weinstein. Like almost as bad as Harvey." McGhee is all: "Worse in some ways." And Todd prattles: "It is. Harvey I thought is in a class by himself I think. But Steve Wynn was pretty close."

Like it's a contest of who's more loathsome. But Nasser, the Olympics doctor alluded to earlier, is obviously the most loathsome of all. He's forgotten at this point however because what McGhee and Todd are really talking about is whether "we've" finally gotten a Republican who's as bad as the Democrat Weinstein.