WSJ Editorial Again Spouts Balderdash About The Steele Dossier

"I believes it if  FOX News and WSJ  editorial agree! Doh!"

Once again, The Wall Street Journal disclosed the dichotomy between its regular reporting of news, and its FOXian editorial page. I say FOXian, because its editorials come over more like scripts from Fox & Friends than any serious opinions predicated on fact. (By contrast its news accounts on the Russian collusion with Trump almost read as if they came from the NY Times. Go figure!) And as I read the latest blather and bilge, 'More Doubts About Mr. Steele' (p. A16, Feb. 8th) I pondered how many hundreds of thousands of readers would be hoodwinked into  believing this artful codswallop.

I am not going to recycle all the dreck for counter attack, only to single out specific parts for condemnation and exposure. First is the claim the "Grassley--Graham referral letter confirms the House memo's finding that the FBI relied heavily on Mr. Steele's dossier claims....."

In fact, as  I pointed out in an earlier post,  this is horse manure.  The true fact is that  the FBI  had in hand foreign intel intercepts pointing to Trump campaign collusion with the Russkies  long before the Steele Dossier contents were known.   In addition, the FBI had in hand the communications from an Australian diplomat - who was informed by George Papadopoulos (in London)  about Russian meetings with the Trumpies- long before Steele's name popped up.

The Right's hysteria about the Fusion GPS oppo research was exposed once it was learned the original firm that hired them was The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative news site. The WSJ editorial at the time even noted it was funded by big GOP donor Paul Singer.  If  the Journal's editorial scribes want a real donkey to pin the tail on it should be Singer! Singer then was merely part of the old Repub order that respected norms and traditions and abhorred the idea of  a two bit Queens real estate chiseler and lowlife becoming  President. So he and the Beacon wanted "oppo" research on him. That is the hard fact.  Once Trump won the nomination, the research was continued by Democrats and HRC. So what?. That proves nothing more than Fusion GPS is a firm that is happy to be employed by either side.

If you want, call them a bipartisan oppo research outfit. But don't call them conspirators or "sleazy operators" as the WSJ editorial writers did then and continue to try to sell.

Another reason this is all offal and claptrap was noted in The Washington Post:

"It's strange is that Grassley and Graham are alleging that Steele may have lied using information the Justice Department already has and had shared with them. It's not clear why Grassley and Graham believe they see potential lies in Steele's interviews that the investigators haven't noticed."

Try now to process this, because it truly reaches the heights (pits?)  of bullshit and propaganda: these two clowns  - Grassley and Graham  - are claiming the DOJ's experts missed the info on Steele they already had - before they gave the material to the two clowns.  This beggars the imagination even as it engenders incredulity on  a scale unseen since the "Pizza gate" horse shit was spread around by Right media back in the fall of 2016. (To refresh readers' memories: In this conspiracy Hillary was alleged to be  keeping child sex slaves in the basement of a pizza parlor in D.C. and exploiting them,)

So no wonder this inspired one former federal prosecutor, Peter Zeidenberg, to outright call it “nonsense.” He suggested  (and I agree) it is a political effort intended to impact the Russia investigation — in which Steele's dossier has become the focus of GOP allegations of improper conduct by federal law enforcement — rather than a serious letter.

But to the WSJ's  anti-Steele troglodytes it's as if they found a gold cache of hidden "info" no one had a  clue about .  Their regular news contributors failed to notify them it was bull shit like Pizzagate.  Every other paragraph in the WSJ  editorial hangs on what this or that other person (including James Comey) said about Steele or his dossier, in particular claiming Steele "wrote it at the direction of the Clinton campaign".  Which is a flat out lie. Steele had already been hired by Fusion GPS  before any Clinton campaign connection and became alarmed at what his sources relayed to him about Trump - Russian contacts. (Which included the Carter Page meets with FSB personnel) We also know many of Steele's sources were from foreign intel intercepts that would have captured meetings of Carter Page with the Russians at various venues.

Because James Comey did not reveal these intercept sources when asked about the Steele dossier's relevance at his hearing, does not mean -  as the WSJ infers - that the FBI "based their wiretap on a single source"   only that Comey wasn't at liberty to reveal all the sources at that time. Indeed, he demurred in elaborating a number of times, "I'm sorry but I can't disclose that.".

The hit job on Christopher Steele - impugning him as a liar e.g.

"whether Mr. Steele lied to the FBI or the FBI was too incompetent to verify that he was the source of a Yahoo News story the result is the same - the FISA court issued a surveillance order on the basis of false information about the credibility of the FBI's main source"

is mind boggling on its own. Truth be told, it was Steele who alerted the FBI to a possible crime in progress, based on his sources and the potential for a hostile foreign power blackmailing an American presidential candidate. Loopy? Lies? Baloney? Not on your life! Steele himself has impeccable character and would be exactly the person you'd want testifying on your behalf in a high profile criminal case - or testifying against the bad guys. As per a Financial  Times account (Feb. 16):

Steele was the "UK intelligence expert on Russia".   James Nixey, the head of Chatham House's Russia and Eurasia program, informed the AP that sections of the dossier document created by Steele "read exactly as reports from the secret services".

In other words 100 percent legit.  Thus, the efforts of the WSJ editorial nabobs and the two Repuke Senator clowns to tar and incriminate him are pure propaganda ploys.  But to be expected from a media-political  axis that peddles lies and unsupported conspiracy bunkum 99 percent of the time.

As the WaPo piece puts it:

"There is an increasing effort among Republicans and the conservative-leaning media to question the legitimacy of the Russia investigation. Increasingly prominent in that effort are attempts to use the Steele dossier as the basis for a deep-state conspiracy against the president. The argument is basically that the dossier was used as the pretext for investigating the Trump campaign — despite The Washington Post and others reporting that "other things also factored into that decision."   But in today's fractured and polarized news environment, too many only see and hear what they want to see and hear.  If they are obsessive FOX News watchers then their confirmation bias will have them only seeing Steele as a "Killary" puppet.

But the point is those "other things" may not be up for debate or exposure, given they are linked to intercepts by other (foreign) intelligence agencies which do not want their sources, personnel and methods revealed. Hence, the WSJ editorial's last sentence:

"The best way to learn what's true and false in the Russian influence story is radical transparency, and the Trump administration should declassify all four FISA applications on Mr. Page and all of the documents behind them."

is total insanity,  masquerading as a rational proposal.   Why? Because there is no way in Hell or on God's green earth that any foreign intelligence service - say that provided info for FISA warrants on Carter Page- would agree to such compromising disclosure. In effect, if such a reckless action was taken, by Trump or anyone in his administration, you can kiss further cooperation with foreign intel agencies goodbye. That ain't gonna happen, and no amount of goading by the WSJ's editors or FOX news will make it happen.

Last but not least, the day after the cited WSJ editorial appeared there was harridan hack Kimberley Strassel, e.g.


once more recycling her scattered attacks on Christopher Steele's character, e. g. 'Who Is Christopher Steele?', WSJ, Feb. 9th, p. A13):

"Watch for the House Democrats to continue defending Mr. Steele despite all this"

What's "all this"? According to Strassel, "Steele was fired for defying FBI orders, meeting with the press, undercutting a probe, and lying about it."

Which is total nonsense especially the part about undercutting a probe when Steele provided many of the key elements germane to it. The lying claim is also baffling but figures into the conspiracy theories Strassel has been nursing and pushing for the past year. In other words, any one who doesn't conform to her pet conspiracy meme, i.e. that Steele was a creature of Hillary and the DNC,  is lying - so that includes Steele too.

As for "defying FBI orders" as my friend Rolf (former Swiss Spezialdienst)  noted, that's ridiculous given Steele isn't a U.S. citizen and isn't bound to obey any "orders" from a foreign intelligence or law agency.  That also means he can give interviews if he desires. This may not apply if he was specifically hired as a contract agent, but we don't know that. We don't have the exact details of the FBI-Steele arrangement, only that he was an "asset".   That's enough semantic latitude to drive a metaphorical Mack truck through. So all Strassel has done is to inflate ordinary differences between UK and U.S nationals into some huge, festering sinister operation. 

What we DO know, as a sensible and intelligent WSJ letter writer  (Albion Urdank) makes clear in today's paper is that: "The FBI long regarded Mr. Steele as a valuable asset.  He was fired after speaking to the press because of the public relations fallout, not because the FBI had lost confidence in him. He did so to prod authorities into moving faster on the information he provided. Mr. Steele was no Clinton partisan but seemed genuinely alarmed at the prospect of a Trump presidency for obvious security reasons."

And most to the point, in rebuttal of Strassel's idiocy:

"America owes him a debt of gratitude instead of the calumny being heaped upon him."

 As for Kimberley, she needs to cool it, along with the WSJ's editors, maybe take her Zoloft and chill.

Leave out the WSJ editorial and op-ed pages' conspiracy mongering, as well as the FOX News campaign to undermine Mueller.  What we do know is that there is now hard evidence of attempted Russian hacks into the election systems of 21 states. Given this,  we ought to cease this phony debate and be ready to protect our voting system now  as the midterms approach. 

If the WSJ's op- ed team - including its stable of  ardent Mueller probe opponents (William McGurn, Kimberley Strassel,  Dan Henninger,  Holman Jenkins) -  are truly the defenders of freedom they so often profess,  then  they ought to drop this BS campaign to attack the FBI, and honorable persons like Christopher Steele  -  the guy who warned us about this perfidy. That,  instead of portraying him as a liar, Hillary-DNC shill  and all purpose bogeyman. So long as they refuse, I will be ignoring the op-ed pages as I would ordinary commercial fishwrap like the National Enquirer.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/christopher-brauchli/77665/a-message-to-the-wall-street-journal-give-voice-to-accuracy-instead-of-partisanship


Excerpt:

The editorial entitled: “A Reckoning for the FBI” appeared three days after a lengthy report by WSJ reporters, Rebecca Ballhaus and Byron Tau had been published. The reporting of those two individuals contradicted much of the “Reckoning for the FBI” editorial.

Thinning Ozone Layer Over Populated Areas Creates New Concerns

                         Diagram illustrating formation and loss of ozone (O3) molecules.

One of the events that got me interested in solar research occurred when a massive solar flare shredded the ozone layer in the early 1970s. The then Skylab orbital observatory reported up to 80 percent of the ozone layer "eroded" by one single super flare (class 4B optical, and X 9 x-ray). The event also aroused my curiosity regarding the ozone layer and its importance for Earth - or rather the organisms that inhabit the Earth.

By now most people know that ozone O3 - is a form of oxygen - and found from 6- 32 miles  above Earth's surface or at the lower edge of the stratosphere. It basically is critical in protecting life forms from the effects of the Sun's ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Take that layer away and you will behold sunburns the likes of which would rival 20 hours straight in a tanning bed, not to mention an explosion of skin cancers.  Minus the ozone layer, in other words, life as we know it would not exist.

So, it is important what happens to that layer.

What disturbed many space and atmospheric scientists is that the ozone layer over the Antarctic appeared to be especially susceptible to erosion, but not from solar flares. We became aware of this via tracking of ozone concentrations by NASA satellites since the 1970s. This paved the way for a study that tapped into that database thereby discovering the adverse role of chlorfluorocarbons or CFCs.

This ground breaking research by Susan Solomon and her team discovered that these chemicals - often released via hair sprays, spray deodorants etc. - reduced stratospheric ozone concentrations all over the world. At that time (1986) industries also used CFCs in refrigeration and dry cleaning. The reduction was observed to be especially bad over Antarctica hence the term "ozone hole".

One by product of the work was to explicate the processes underlying ozone hole formation. It was known, for example, that CFCs destroyed Antarctic ozone every spring. But only later was it revealed that the process begins even before winter.  It commences, in fact, at the summer solstice or shortly thereafter when the Sun rises causing light to strike the ambient CFCs, breaking its chemical dons and freeing chlorine (e.g. CCl₃F → CCl₂F^. + Cl^.    )

The freed chlorine atoms (at the end of the right side of the above equation) then strip the oxygen  (O2) from the ozone (O3) to form other chemicals destroying the ozone itself. This leads to the emergence of an "ozone hole" which generally reaches peak area in October.

Solomon et al more recent research can be accessed at this link:

http://bit.ly/science-ozone

It shows the extent to which changes in atmospheric chemistry and human activity are inextricably linked. Specifically, the authors show how public policy efforts i.e. (to ban CFCs) over decades have paid off by shrinking the Antarctic ozone by more than 4 million square miles (a 16 percent decrease) since 2000.

Now, the new concern, as reported in Tuesday's WSJ ('Ozone Thinning Over Populated Areas', p. A3)  is that the protective ozone shield may be thinning over the most heavily populated areas of the planet.   We call the ozone layer (see image from space) "protective" because it inhibits the influx of hazardous ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the Sun. If this passed through in too high an intensity it would damage DNA and heighten cancer risk as well as cause plenty of cataracts.

In the new analysis, led by physicist William Ball and atmospheric scientists at the Davos World Radiation Center (and ETH Zurich) in Switzerland, a decrease in the O3 concentration has been found at lower levels of the stratosphere - but now in non-polar regions.    The decline has also been found to be larger than the rise measured at higher altitudes, e.g. over the Antarctic. These results were reported on Tuesday in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, published by the European Geosciences Union.  

Still, atmospheric specialist Sophie Godin-Beekman, of the French National Center for Scientific Research, points out that the observed behavior could be just a "temporary variation within the broader band of ozone in the atmosphere'.   This is possible given any changes in density are unusually difficult to measure and may take decades to unfold. 

Anne R. Douglas, atmospheric scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, put it this way: "Detecting an ozone response at middle latitudes, where the chemical changes are small to being with and the dynamic variability is much larger, remains challenging." 

This again, is an admission that atmospheric science is at the practical limits of confident measurement.  What is needed now is a radical improvement in data reduction methods and observation techniques, including more refined ozone detecting instruments. 

Rand Paul's Shutdown Stunt Shows Why No Libbie Will Ever Be Elected President

Sen. John Cornyn (R, TX) last night put it bluntly:

“The senator from Kentucky by objecting to the unanimous consent requests will effectively shut down the federal government, for no real reason,”

He was referring to Sen. Rand Paul, a self-proclaimed Libertarian like his daddy, Ron Paul. For those who may not know, libertarians occupy the extreme clown end of the political spectrum like the Constitution Party. They are all hard core ideologues who have no clue how to pick their battles, and mostly like grand standing on the themes that "taxes are theft" and "no deficit is good enough to tolerate."

Cornyn went on to add that Paul’s actions  were “grossly irresponsible” and said he would not make concessions to the Kentucky Republican. “Why reward bad behavior?” asked Cornyn.

Why indeed? Fortunately for all concerned Paul's mini-shutdown ended early this morning, approved by a bipartisan Senate majority of 71-28.  Make no mistake this is a rare episode given the nation's extreme polarization. But bottom line, the Dems had no stomach for another shutdown - even to defend the Dreamers.  Their own camp being split - with the centrists in Trump states refusing to come aboard -  they chose discretion over valor, especially with the midterm elections 10 months away.

After the bill made it to the House, the latter  eventually voted to approve it at 5.30am by a margin of 240 to 186. There were 73 Democrats who voted for the legislation and 67 Republicans who voted against.  Of course, the top House Repuke- Paul Ryan - had his whine all ready with the aim to blame the Dems for so much more spending, e.g.

"Without more Republicans in Congress, we were forced to increase spending on things we do not like or want in order to finally, after many years of depletion, take care of our Military"

Aw, boo hoo hoo. They had to "take care of  the military". The same military that now enjoys more gov't spending than the next twelve nations combined, including China and Russia. Cry me a river, do.  But we all know the Repukes' deficit game and have since the Reagan era: run up all the deficits you can on "defense" and then if and when Dems get into power, cry and whine 'Deficits!' if they try to increase domestic spending.  

Anyway,  Trump subsequently  signed the two-year spending bill into law around 8.40 a.m.  tweeting:

“Our military will now be stronger than ever before. We love and need our military and gave them everything – and more. First time this has happened in a long time.”

This from "President Bone Spur" who used the physical "disability" of bone spurs in his foot to grab five deferments to avoid military service in the Vietnam era.  This same bone spur victim who now fancies having a Mussolini- North Korea- Nazi style military parade - complete with tanks, missiles and tens of thousands of marching grunts - on July 4th.  Word out of D.C is that even the brass at the Pentagon are doing double eye rolls.

Back to Rand Paul. We know his late night  grandstanding effort did little other than postpone the inevitable and prove Paul is a hypocrite on exploding deficits. After all, where was his Libbie conscience and religion when the Treasury busting tax cuts were passed? Why wasn't he doing his best to stop that, given we're looking at $1.5 trillion in added deficits?

All Rand Paul did is demonstrate why no Libertarian politician will ever be elected President. They are too absolutist, too ideological and colossal hypocrites besides.

See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/07/why-libertarians-will-never-win.html
 

 And:

 

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/77650/rand-paul-and-the-sleepover-shutdown-a-three-act-farce

Age Discrimination Still On The Rise - Even Online

The news in the latest AARP Bulletin ('Age Discrimination Goes Online', December, p. 6) was not sanguine for most older citizens looking for work - either to shore up their retirement savings, or to help pay for medical or dental bills. Worse, the specter of such discrimination has now gone online making it extremely difficult for oldsters to apply for jobs without being exposed - in the application process - as an oldie, i.e. "over the hill", and no longer needed.

Where or how did this punitive meme begin? Probably with a Fortune 500 White paper published in 1996, which few seem to have read, that made the case that once a worker reaches 50 years of age it's a matter of "diminishing returns" for any company that retains them. Why? Well, they demand too high an income and as they age there are more medical issues meaning more health benefits are required.

According to the AARP piece:

"In one recent study - the largest of its kind- researchers sent out over 40,000 resumes to apply for more than 13,000 job openings posted online in 12 cities. To test for age discrimination, they responded to each posting with three resumes representing different age groups (young, middle aged and senior) Even though all had similar skills, older candidates received far fewer call backs than young or middle-aged workers."

According to Patrick Button, one of the study co-authors and an assistant professor of economics at Tufts University (ibid.):

"It's just age; it doesn't have to do with experience".

So that given the natures of the resumes and skill descriptions, the only conceivable reasons for rejection had to be based on age. This is deplorable, but some may recall that 50 or so years ago it was commonplace to see help wanted ads with the notice:

"Only workers under 35 need apply."

In addition, employers could force worker into early retirement based on age.

So if you were older you were basically put out to pasture as it were.  That changed with the passage of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act - known by the acronym ADEA.

While ADEA and other laws implemented have helped they have not solved the problem, the problem being that too many companies still prefer younger workers. So, facing the federal and other age discrimination laws, employers have had to develop new tactics to screen applications for oldies.

One tactic seen in numerous online applications is that they feature drop-down menus that only go back to the 1980s. If you have job experience before then, well too bad, you are a dino who deserves to land in a rocking chair - never mind you still need to make up for the  401(k) losses suffered in the 2008 crash.

Other online applications require birth dates and if you try to be too clever by half, i.e. skipping the question, the application won't be accepted.  Meanwhile, other job listings expressly state a preference for "digital natives" - meaning that lot that grew up using computers.  Mainly Gen X and Millennials

  The stats showing  charges filed with the EEOC are shown below and the amounts awarded, excluding litigation:

 The AARP piece also showed the extent to which the age discriminators can go by citing the case of a 50 year old (recall that Fortune 500 paper), Steve Rabin, who applied for an accounting job at PriceWaterhouseCoopers.  As noted therein (ibid.):

"In Rabin's case, many of the firm's entry level positions were posted on a web page accessible only to college students. And the online application also required answers to questions that made it easy to identify and reject older applicants."

Even when Rabin finally managed to get an interview he was asked the question:

"Would you be able to work for a younger manager or director?"

Despite answering his good experiences with younger workers, Rabin wasn't hired.  But it shouldn't have been a surprise. According to Laurie McCann, senior attorney for the AARP Foundation:

"It's pretty blatant. There's nothing in there that says age and yet there's an adverse impact on older applicants."

We should also note, as the AARP does, that "federal courts have also eroded the protections that employees can turn to. A ruling in 2009 declared that it's not enough to show that age was one of the factors in losing a job. Rather, the individual must prove it's the primary factor."

All of this is one more major reason we need to increase Social Security benefits, and especially cease offsetting any COLA increases with increases in Medicare premiums. Bottom line: you don't get to tell an oldster to "go back to work" to get more money for retirement security, when there is little or no chance of being hired.

Patsy Coach Josh McDaniels Shows What The "Patriot Way" Is All About: Weasels,Liars & Cheats

"Lemme think...do I wanna really leave Massuh Bill's chains....maybe not!"

"Be embarrassed, Indianapolis Colts, but also be relieved. Josh McDaniels is a punk and a loser, but he’s not your punk. He’s not your loser.

He’s not your head coach, thank God.

Imagine, knowing what we know right now, infecting this franchise with that fraud. ....The Colts just got punked by the biggest punk in the NFL coaching community, a guy so callous that he convinced a handful of assistant coaches elsewhere to leave wherever they were to come work for him in Indianapolis. Those assistants, including Dallas Cowboys assistant Matt Eberflus, now seem stuck.  ... "

-  Gregg Doyel, Indianapolis Star, yesterday

As long time pro football fans,  wifey and I were both appalled yesterday morning to learn Patsy offensive coach Josh McDaniels had backed out of his coaching deal with Indianapolis. As Indy GM Chris Ballard put it, one's word is supposed to be his bond. But not, evidently,  int the case of a punk like Josh McDaniels.

According to the account in the Indy Star:

"McDaniels, the Patriots’ longtime offensive coordinator, had arrived at 1 Patriot Place Tuesday morning intent on cleaning out his office and informing his bosses – that’d be head coach Bill Belichick and owner Robert Kraft – that he was leaving for Indianapolis. Then, over the course of several hours, while Ballard met with grieving players, planned for the draft and the Colts sent out word that Josh McDaniels was, indeed, their new head coach, Josh McDaniels decided he wasn’t going to be their new head coach.

It was a stunning U-turn, one that would leave Ballard and the Colts in nearly unprecedented NFL territory. Three assistants had signed contracts to work under McDaniels and were already in the building."

 That's right, you read the last sentence correctly.  McDaniels didn't just shiv Indy's GM Ballard but three other assistant coaches he'd ostensibly hired, now left in limbo,  without the guy that hired them for Indy.   This is the "Patriot Way" for you, based on lies,  broken words and yes,  plenty of cheating including deflated footballs and secret viddying of opposing team practices.  People wonder why so many hate these bastards, well now you know.

The word from Patsyland (boston.com)  is that head cheatriot Bill Belichick buttonholed McDaniels and told him if he stayed he'd bequeath to him all the secrets of the "Patriot Way". The inside scoop from the master, as it were, on the hidden innards of the team and its dynamic operations.  That, along with owner owner Robert Kraft's promise to "sweeten"  McDaniels' contract deal convinced the spineless maggot to stay - betraying his bond and 3 week agreement with Ballard to become the Colts new HC.

For historical reference, McDaniels' only other stint as a head coach came after being hired by the Denver Broncos in 2008.  But by 2010 he was fired, after a 3-9 record and having earned the hatred of nearly every one of the million or so Bronco fans.  They couldn't wait to see the loser leave town.  So maybe the punk did Indy a favor, who knows?

The ones he didn't do any favors for were the three assistant coaches he enticed to leave stable positions to join him in Indy.  But let's be clear, they each have more character and honesty in each of their pinky fingers than McDaniels' Patriots possess in their entire organization.

The basic lesson McDaniels has never learned, and it applies to Donald Trump as well, is that honor and one's word trumps (no pun intended) taking the most pay, the most toys or tossing fellow humans under the bus to get ahead. But this is why New England is also called "Trump's team" because they all subscribe to the motto that "cheating is better than losing".  (For once they didn't cheat in Sunday's Super Bowl.)

What would have been the honorable and decent way for McDaniels to have acted? To have told Belichick and Kraft, "Thanks for your offers, but I already made my commitment to be head coach of the Colts. and there are three other coaches I asked to come aboard who I can't screw over."

WHO has real honor in this mess? McDaniels' agent Bob Lamonte, who severed ties with the Patsy punk hours after this fiasco.   La Monte told the Sports Business Journal yesterday:

"My word is my bond.  Once you break that, there's nothing left."

Would that Josh McDaniels had also learned that cornerstone of character.