So much for another conspiracy

Axios reports that the WSJ (probably taken over by the Deep State, according to Steve Kates and CL)  has read all of the FBI texts, and it's a "no conspiracy" call from them:

The Wall Street Journal read through 7,000 text messages from FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who have been intensely criticized after it emerged they had exchanged anti-Trump texts while Strzok was investigating Hillary Clinton and later Donald Trump. WSJ concluded that the "texts critical of Mr. Trump represent a fraction of the roughly 7,000 messages, which stretch across 384 pages and show no evidence of a conspiracy against Mr. Trump."

Why it matters: President Trump has gone so far as to accuse the pair of "treason," heightening the tension between the White House and the FBI. This WSJ's findings follow the release of the controversial Nunes memo, which the White House claims shows wrongful action against Trump on the part of the FBI.

Sensible people, people who are not idiots, would recognize the way Republicans are throwing around claims of  "treason" as a sign of clear authoritarian impulses.   

A shorter memo summary

From Walter Shapiro, in The Guardian:

To summarize: in a document that the FBI called inaccurate, House Republicans claim that the Democrats had some shadowy role in a pre-election Fisa warrant against a “very low-level” Trump adviser who had already left the campaign. Compared with the Nunes memo, the never-ending, dry-hole Republican Benghazi investigations look like textbook examples of prudent congressional oversight.

To Trumpian true believers, the Nunes memo proves that the FBI and the rest of the Deep State were conspiring to throw the election to Hillary. Of course, this omits the pesky detail that on 28 October 2016, the FBI director, James Comey, announced that he was reopening the Clinton email investigation based on what had been found on Anthony Weiner’s computer.

Guess which late October event had more effect on wavering 2016 voters: Comey’s dramatic public statement raising fresh doubts about the Democratic nominee or a secret warrant against a peripheral Trump adviser?

And this: 

All this raises the question of why Nunes, the Republican majority on the House intelligence committee, Paul Ryan and Trump were so willing to go to war with the FBI over a cap-gun memo. We even have hyper-ventilating Republican congressmen shouting “treason”.

The glib answer is that this a pretext for Trump to fire Mueller and the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein. But Mueller is never mentioned in the Nunes memo and Rosenstein makes only a cameo appearance. More attention is devoted to articles by journalists David Corn (Mother Jones) and Mike Isikoff (Yahoo News).

Perhaps a more convincing answer is that we have reached that alarming moment when right-wing Republicans actually believe the conspiracy theories peddled by the likes of Sean Hannity on Fox News, who claims the memo reveals an “attempted coup” against Donald Trump plotted by the “Deep State”.

 And for more Australian Right wingnut stupidity, here's Mark Lithium Latham:

About the memo, and the sad, big conspiracy poisoning of the Right

There are quite a few pieces of analysis around about how the Nunes memo is, as some White House staffers knew it would be, a misfire.  Perhaps the editorial in the WAPO sums up some key points best:

...even on its own terms, the memo does more to refute than to support the FBI corruption narrative that the president is spinning. Consider these four damning admissions: 

First, the memo states that separate information on a different Trump adviser, George Papadopoulos, “triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence operation.” In other words, it was not the Democratic-funded dossier or the warrant against Mr. Page that led to the Russia probe. Instead, the memo reveals that there were preexisting grounds to investigate, based on information about a different Trump associate. So the president cannot construe this memo as offering evidence that the Russia probe began corruptly.

Second, the memo indicates that the Justice Department sought its warrant against Mr. Page in October 2016 — after Mr. Page had left the Trump campaign. So the president’s campaign was not the intended target.

Third, the memo notes that “the FBI and DOJ obtained one initial FISA warrant targeting Carter Page and three FISA renewals,” and that “each renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause.” The court would not have made those separate findings or granted renewals without evidence that the surveillance was producing valuable information that Mr. Page may have been acting as an agent of a foreign power.

Fourth, the memo states that among those who signed renewal applications were Dana Boente, whom Mr. Trump tapped to temporarily lead the Justice Department after firing acting attorney general Sally Yates, and Rod J. Rosenstein, whom Mr. Trump chose to be the deputy attorney general. For the conspiracy narrative to hold any water, one would have to believe that officials appointed by a Republican president, including one confirmed by a Republican Senate, were part of a plot to bring down that same Republican president, and that they successfully hoodwinked FISA judges selected by the Republican-appointed chief justice of the United States. This hoodwinking would have continued after the nature of the dossier had been widely publicized and Mr. Page’s Russian connections publicly scrutinized. This is beyond improbable.

The memo offers no evidence that the dossier’s allegations about Mr. Page were wrong. In fact, Mr. Page himself confirmed a great deal of the dossier’s material about himself in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, admitting to extensive contact with Russian officials during a July 2016 trip to Moscow.

The memo also omits a great deal of the other information that bolstered the case against Mr. Page. He has been on the government’s radar screen since at least 2013, when investigators scrutinized a Russian spy’s apparent attempt to recruit him.

 Did the FISA court fail to receive all relevant information about the dossier? That’s a legitimate question, but it’s impossible to know the answer, especially because House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and other Republican leaders let the Nunes document go public without the simultaneous disclosure of a Democratic memo that is still restricted from public view. The New York Times reported Friday that the Democratic memo claims the FBI in fact informed the court that the dossier was politically motivated. And it’s worth noting that the Nunes memo contains no serious discussion of whether failing to disclose the dossier’s full provenance — if that is what occurred — should have put the warrant against Mr. Page in legal jeopardy. In fact, as University of Southern California law professor Orin Kerr points out, judges generally assume that informants provide slanted accounts and build that into their review of warrant applications. Consequently, when bias on the part of informants is exposed after a warrant is issued, judges still generally uphold the warrant.

I see quite a few people saying that the memo is designed to mislead people who are unfamiliar with the FISA process, and that sounds right.

The malevolent misleading of the American Right wing continues apace on Fox News, the appalling propaganda network:

Hannity summarized the Nunes memo for his 4 million viewers. Every word is a lie.

Sure, that's from Think Progress, but how can you argue with these examples?:

“It proves that the entire basis for the Russia investigation was based on lies that were bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton”

The memo actually explicitly states the opposite. According to the memo, the FBI counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign’s connection was based on information the FBI received about George Papadapolous in July 2016.

“…all to help one candidate out — all to mislead the American people.”

The surveillance of Carter Page was not made public during the campaign and, therefore, did not benefit Hillary Clinton. The American people did not know anything about it on election day.

But the deliberate political misinformation works on many on the Right, who (as I said recently) have become stupidly obsessed with conspiracies, pretty much the same as those Europeans 100 years ago who were obsessed with a grand Jewish conspiracy.   (That's the deep irony of the current state of Right wing politics - who all pledge allegiance to Israel).  Here's CL, from Catallaxy, whose brain is simply unable to comprehend when it is being conned by political propaganda, and has become a conspiracy fantascist of the highest order:

JC, if you are reading this - why don't you ever tell CL he has to get a grip on reality?   Mind you, you're a completely unreliable judge of scientific and political information yourself, but you're not as far gone as 90% of Catallaxy.

Those were the days

I just stumbled across reference to one Jane Humphries (a professor of economic history at Oxford) and her work on child labor in Victorian England.

It was the subject of a BBC doco back in 2011, and I'm pretty sure I have not seen it.   However, it is available in full on Youtube.  Sounds worth watching.

Brave

I've found a good quality version of the video released last week showing in painful detail how Tom Cruise broke his ankle while filming MI:6 last year.  Of course, the main reason for watching is to (once again) be amazed at the guy's physical bravery and complete disregard for heights, regardless of the fact that he is on a safety harness:

The conspiracy party

Hardly surprising to read this:

Inside the Trump administration, sources who've been briefed on the Nunes memo expect it will be underwhelming and not the “slam dunk” document it's been hyped up to be.

What we're hearing: There is much more skepticism inside the administration than has been previously reported about the value of releasing the memo, according to sources familiar with the administration discussions.

Be smart: Trump still wants to release the memo. But there are a number of people in the White House who are fairly underwhelmed, and there's internal anxiety about whether it's worth angering the FBI director and intelligence community by releasing this information.

All aligns with a now obvious fact:  the American (and the stupider parts of the Australian) Right has become consumed by conspiracy ideation, whipping itself into a frenzy via its bubble universe of Right wing media, and then failing to learn the lessons of simply being wrong.

The big examples:   climate change (the prime, overarching, example); Benghazi; Hillary about to die; Obama re his birth and religion; uranium deal with Russia; and now the FBI.  

It's poisoning the Right, and they don't realise it.

That didn't take long

From Axios:

Because the tax bill reduced government revenues, Congress must act to raise the debt limit by early March, instead of as late as April, the Congressional Budget Office said today, according to Bloomberg.

Still suspicious of Swan

Jonathan Swan tweeted this yesterday about the "pro-life" adoption bit from Trump's speech:

Quite a few people have challenged him about this.  Adoption over abortion may well be something that many people favour (in principle, I like the idea too), but in telling the story this way, with the fate of the addicted birth mother left completely unmentioned, seems a dubious way of selling the message.  (Many people feel an even "more beautiful" outcome would have been for the mother to get the addiction treatment she needed via a properly government funded option,  keep her child and go on to lead a productive life as an ex-user.   Successes of that kind do happen.   But no, that doesn't suit the conservative, small government message.)

One other thing - the adoptive father already had 4 kids at age 27?   I know Americans still marry young compared to international figures, but such a reproductive record even in the 1950's would have been on the high side.

Look, almost certainly this indicates a very religious, possibly Catholic background, and I don't wish them ill.  But it would not be at all surprising if this family, under pressure from its reproductive rate and marrying at a young age, later breaks up.   It just has those sort of "danger" hints to me, making it unwise to give it large prominence as an example to the nation.

But young Jonathan Swan seems to recognize nothing of these reasons to not embrace the story as a PR, conservative triumph,  which again really makes me wonder about his background.   Is he a conservative Catholic himself?  NTTAWWT, but I just like to understand reporters and where they are coming from.   Especially if they are reporting on Trump and are not cynical about his pandering to Conservative sentiments.

Update:   Slate makes the same points here.

More on Brexit

Simon Wren-Lewis writes against Brexit again, following the leak of government forecasts which all predict a negative effect on the economy.  But this aspect, regarding the effect on immigration and services in the NHS, is something I hadn't heard of before:

There is even a large fantasy element when it comes to immigration. Yes, there are a few Leavers who would pay a large amount to avoid hearing a foreign language spoken in their town, but they do not represent most Leave voters. Instead there is the belief, carefully cultivated by the Conservative party, that immigration has reduced real wages and our access to public services. Large numbers voted Leave because they thought less EU immigrants would mitigate the NHS crisis. Now those EU immigrants who also happened to be doctors or nurses are leaving, and the NHS cannot fill vacancies. And, of course, those lower growth numbers mean less money to spend on the NHS: the Brexit dividend is negative.

Trouble in the White House?

It's hard to believe that there isn't some trouble going on in the Trump marriage.  Might take public news of just one more affair since the marriage to end up with a walk out, one suspects.

The only person I feel a bit sorry for in the situation is Barron.  Many kids might have a lousy, philandering Dad, but not many have one who is the subject of intense media interest in publicising his infidelities.  However, as adults, I do tend to find the Trump kids' strong allegiance to their Dad a bit surprising.    So maybe it'll be all money off a duck's back to Barron in the long run too...

Jesus and curry

It was interesting to read at the TLS about the origin of the popular 1970's New Age story that Jesus had spent his young adulthood in India.

I would have guessed that someone had dreamt it up in the 1950's or 60's (like the fraudulent Lobsang Rampa books that were popular in the period); but it dates backs to an odd Russian living in Paris in the 1890's.  It's an interesting story about an unreliable character, whose heart may have been sort of in the right place.

Speaking of the 1970's and its odd penchant with all things paranormal and pop-mystical - I reckon astrology has taken a very big hit in popularity since those days.   I'm not even sure my teenage kids would know their star sign, whereas in the 1970's virtually everyone did, and reading newspaper predications for the day was a bit of jokey habit for many people.

Stupid ABC

I'm not at all convinced that this rebranding of ABC2 to ABC Comedy is a good idea.

Problem is, there is so much space to fill it becomes a mix of old dross with new stuff that I do want to see but which gets insufficient advertising.

Case in point - Red Dwarf XII.  I only realised last week that it was running at 9.30 on a Tuesday evening, and I've only caught the last 2 episodes.   (It started on 26 December, apparently.)

That show has a devoted, long standing fan base (and it cheery good nature remains pleasing, and pretty amusing, despite the stars ageing before our eyes), yet the dire Tom Ballard with his swear-like-a-bogan monologues on his awful Tonightly show, has received much more promotion.

Not at all sure recent changes of the ABC are in the right direction.

What shabby, crooked politics

So, we all know a clear non-denial in a situation like this means it did indeed happen - the Republican generated anti FBI and Justice Department memo was not generated by the committee independently, it had input from White House Staffers.  How convenient for Trump.

The description of the memo, which almost certainly Trump will release with no acknowledgement of its self serving creation, given by Democrat Mark Warner looks very accurate:

“a partisan sham cooked up to undermine the FBI, DOJ, and the Mueller probe. House Republicans are playing a very dangerous game.”

It shouldn't need to be repeated, but culture war propaganda and blindness requires it

A good list put up by Mike Allen at Axios, about the indisputable things known about the Russia investigation:

Why it matters: Take the known knowns — 10 undisputed facts — and the smoke clears considerably.

1. At the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, the Trump campaign, chaired by Paul Manafort (since indicted), worked behind the scenes to weaken the party platform's anti-Russia stance on Ukraine.
2. "Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting."
3. Top Trump campaign officials met at Trump Tower with sketchy Russians who had offered dirt on Hillary Clinton.
4. On Air Force One, Trump helped his son, Don Jr., prepare a misleading statement about the meeting.
5. Trump, contradicting what his staff had said earlier, told NBC he fired FBI Director James Comey because of "this Russia thing."
6. Michael Flynn, later Trump's first national security adviser, talked privately about sanctions with the Russian ambassador during the transition, then denied it to Vice President Pence.
7. Flynn (who has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI) failed to disclose payments from Russia-linked entities. Trump has repeatedly defended Flynn.
8. During the transition, Jared Kushner spoke with the Russian ambassador "about establishing a secret communications channel between the Trump transition team and Moscow."
9. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, then a U.S. senator, spoke twice to the Russian ambassador, then didn't disclose the contacts during his confirmation hearing.
10. When Bob Mueller was named special counsel, Republicans widely praised him.

Be smart: No sane person looking at those known knowns would say this is a crazy investigation.

The big picture: Yes, FBI agents have probably said things in texts they shouldn't have. Yes, former FBI Director James Comey was clumsy in his comments about Hillary Clinton. But none of that changes what this investigation is really about.

Speaking of bad writing

This is a very strange piece of writing at Slate about (Apple boss) Tim Cook.   I don't know what to make of it, except to think that it shouldn't be there. 

A review best avoided

I do torture myself occasionally by trying a Helen Razor column, and if you thought one in which she complains about The Post, feminism when it is "pressed into the service of power", as well as her fear of menopause and dislike of hot weather, would be an excruciating read - yes, it is!

Her discursive, always self-involved, style is (as usual) virtually impenetrable, and yet she has her supporters in comments.  (Not many, though.)  

Brexit and the economy

Axios notes:

An analysis from the U.K. government anticipates entirely negative economic impacts from Brexit regardless of the terms of the exit deal, Buzzfeed News, which got its hands on the analysis, reports.

• Top-line figures: Growth would fall by 8% over 15 years under a "no-deal Brexit," 2% under a "soft Brexit" and 5% under a middle course. Nearly every economic sector would be hurt, with the exception of agriculture, along with every geographic region.

The bottom line: The British government is going to spend the next year or so in intense negotiations over a process its own analysis suggests will bring entirely negative economic consequences.

Seriously, why would a sensible government continue down that path when it believes those are the consequences?   

Update:  Simon Wren-Lewis writes about Brexit and the Conservatives:

This Brexit syndrome, which infects nearly half the Conservative party MPs and most of its membership, is a visceral dislike of the EU in all its manifestations. I am not talking about why most voters chose to leave, which was an unfortunately all too familiar reaction to a public campaign that has blamed immigrants for every grievance and fear they have. Brexit syndrome is instead manifested in a belief that you must leave a customs union with your overwhelmingly biggest trading partner so you can seek inferior trade agreements with other more distant countries. The only explanation for that belief is a deep irrational dislike of all things EU.

For those Conservative MPs not subject to Brexit syndrome I have bad news. Leaving the EU as planned is not a cure. The nightmare of Brexit will not pass. Whatever deal the UK eventually concludes with the EU, it will be unacceptable to the Brexiters. Only a clean break with all things EU will satisfy them.

Please let it happen

Jonathan Swan apparently said this re Trump giving evidence to Mueller:

In other stuff watched on Netflix

*  Tried watching the first episode of "Black Lightning", a DC superhero show that seems oddly timed to match the soon to be released Marvel "Black Panther" movie (which I doubt is funny enough for me to bother seeing.)   Terrible.

*  Am getting through the second series of Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee.   Yes, it's often very amusing.    I haven't come across an episode yet which I felt didn't work at all.   Also, in the Julia Louis Deyfus episode, I was surprised how ordinary and suburban her part of Hollywood (where she lives) looked.

*  Watched the well reviewed movie "The Witch" on the weekend (I think it's a recent addition.)  Well, it's very odd, I think, the way it comes across as a very authentic recreation of the isolation, hyper-religiosity and hysteria leading to the witch panics in New England, but then the ending seems to undercut it completely.   While it looks very painterly and is pretty well directed, I just didn't get it...

A good thing

I've been meaning to commend the Netflix comedy show The Good Place for some months, and after watching the first episode of the second season last night, it's time to do it.

The show has been a hit with most critics, and deservedly so.   It's rare to find something that is so intelligent, so well acted by every single cast member, and so frequently very funny.   (Its humour is not timed for every 60 seconds, as it is for "filmed before a live studio audience" sitcoms, but nonetheless it is continually amusing.)   Also, it's good to see Ted Danson in something as classy as this after his long run in pretty B grade sitcom material.

I was a bit dubious about the scenario set up for the second series, but the first episode (well, sort of two episodes combined) was very good.  Not sure they'll manage to wrangle a 3rd series though!