{"id":60413,"date":"2018-06-17T19:41:19","date_gmt":"2018-06-17T23:41:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=60413"},"modified":"2018-06-17T19:41:27","modified_gmt":"2018-06-17T23:41:27","slug":"the-daily-gouge-archive-friday-june-15th-2018","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=60413","title":{"rendered":"The Daily Gouge Archive, Friday, June 15th, 2018"},"content":{"rendered":"

It’s Friday, June 15th, 2018…and<\/strong>\u00a0here’s The Gouge!<\/strong><\/p>\n

First up, as Jim Geraghty details at his\u00a0Morning Jolt<\/em>, immediately following the Singapore Summit, The Donald evidently had places to go, people to see, because…<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u2018We Didn\u2019t Put It in the Agreement because We Didn\u2019t Have Time<\/span><\/a>\u2019<\/span><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“Some folks think I was too hard on President Trump, his comments, and the overall gist of the potential agreements at the Singapore summit.<\/strong><\/span> I wonder if those folks saw the<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0comments from the president such as<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/span>, \u201cYou have things that weren\u2019t included that we got after the deal was signed.<\/span> I\u2019ve done that before<\/em> in my life.<\/span> And we didn\u2019t put it in the agreement<\/span> because we didn\u2019t have time<\/span><\/em>.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Didn\u2019t have time<\/span>?<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

What, was there some other place<\/em><\/span> these guys needed to be? Was either leader worried about missing a flight or something?<\/span> Trust me<\/em>, Air Force One isn\u2019t going to take off without the president<\/em><\/span>. This isn\u2019t the SAT, and there is no proctor declaring \u201cpencils down\u201d when the hour is complete<\/em><\/span>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

I suppose you could argue that it didn\u2019t matter if the North Korean pledges were written down or not…because this regime has<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0violated its own written pledges again and again<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\n

…I keep hearing from Trump fans, \u201cWhy can\u2019t you show a little optimism?\u201d<\/p>\n

Well, because optimism requires<\/em><\/span> us to believe that these latest<\/span> promises are completely different<\/span> from all of the previous promises from this regime<\/span><\/em>. The skepticism I have about this<\/em><\/span> latest round of promises from North Korea is the exact same skepticism I bring to the Iran deal<\/em><\/span>, which every<\/span> Trump fan is thrilled<\/span> to see scrapped<\/span><\/em>.<\/span> History teaches us<\/em> that\u00a0hostile regimes lie a lot<\/span>.<\/em>\u00a0It\u2019s not a matter of the United States not reaching out to them in the right way<\/em><\/span>.<\/span> If they have<\/span> the opportunity to cheat, they will<\/span> cheat<\/em>. One might argue that duplicity<\/em><\/span> is intrinsic to the nature of any regime that is unwilling to subject itself to the limit of free and fair elections<\/em><\/span>.<\/span> No one\u2019s ever looked at a dictator, tyrant, despot, or ayatollah and said, \u201cWow, that guy\u2019s a really honest leader<\/span><\/em>.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s fans are convinced he\u2019s got some unique \u201cdon\u2019t mess with him\u201d mojo that will intimidate the North Koreans into keeping their promises.<\/span> I hope they\u2019re right<\/em><\/span>. Maybe Trump has communicated that breaking a promise to his administration will indeed bring \u201cfire and fury.\u201d If it works out, give him the Nobel<\/span><\/em>.\u00a0(At least HE’LL<\/em><\/span> have earned<\/em><\/span> it!)<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

But I think any U.S. leader hoping to successfully negotiate a deal with the North Koreans has to keep all of this history of broken promises in the back of his mind.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Judging from Trump\u2019s comments, he wants to approach Kim Jong-un with a clean slate: \u201cLook, he\u2019s doing what he\u2019s seen done, if you look at it.<\/span> But I really have to go by today and yesterday and a couple of weeks ago because that\u2019s really when this whole thing started.\u201d<\/strong><\/span>“<\/p>\n

Yeah<\/em>,…<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

…whatever<\/em><\/span>.\u00a0 As for us, the proof will be in the pudding…along with the verified dismantling\/destruction of the NoKo nuclear arsenal.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Next up, as regards the long-awaited Inspector General’s report, while we deeply respect the opinion of the WSJ<\/em>‘s Kim Strassel.<\/span>..<\/strong><\/p>\n

Insubordination and Bias at FBI<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/h1>\n

The inspector general report is careful in its conclusions, but damning on the facts<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

“Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz\u2019s 500-page report covers plenty, but it can be distilled to two words<\/span> he uses to describe the Federal Bureau of Investigation during the 2016 election: insubordination and bias<\/span><\/em>.<\/span> Two terms that are chilling<\/span> in connection with such a powerful agency<\/em><\/strong><\/span>…”<\/p>\n

…rather than “careful”, we find Michael Horowitz’s conclusions incomprehensibly naive<\/em><\/span> at best<\/em><\/span>, and the product of deep-state corruption<\/em><\/span> at worst<\/em><\/span>.\u00a0 It’s frankly impossible to believe any reasonable<\/em>, unbiased<\/em><\/span>\u00a0individual could review the facts surrounding the activities of Jim Comey’s FBI and reach any<\/em><\/span> conclusion other than<\/em><\/span> they were driven purely by politics<\/em><\/span>!\u00a0 Yet somehow<\/em>, someway<\/em><\/span>, this Obama appointee<\/em><\/span> determined…<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cWhile we did not find that these decisions were the result of political bias on Comey\u2019s 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<\/strong><\/span>…\u201d<\/p>\n

Likewise for Peter Strzok and his repulsive paramour Lisa Page:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cWe did not find documentary or testimonial evidence<\/em><\/span> that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed<\/strong><\/span>…\u201d<\/p>\n

Sorry, but what reason other<\/em><\/span> than politics could possibly explain<\/em><\/span> their conduct?!?\u00a0 And exactly how hard<\/em><\/span> did Horowitz look<\/em><\/span>?\u00a0 It’s not like the evidence detailing the political bias of Strzok and Page wasn’t staring him in the face:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

As importantly, proof of this patently-exhibited prejudice wasn’t restricted to Comey, Strzok and Page, as this exchange courtesy of Townhall.com<\/em>‘s Matt Vespa confirms:<\/strong><\/p>\n

“The second exchange we identified occurred on November 9, 2016, the day after the presidential election. FBI Attorney 2 and another FBI employee who was not involved in the Midyear investigation exchanged the following instant messages. Note that the sender of the instant message is identified after the timestamp and intervening messages that did not contribute to the understanding of this exchange are not included.<\/p>\n

09:38:14, FBI Attorney 2: \u201cI am numb.\u201d<\/p>\n

09:55:35, FBI Employee: \u201cI can\u2019t stop crying.\u201d<\/p>\n

10:00:13, FBI Attorney 2: \u201cThat makes me even more sad.\u201d<\/p>\n

10:43:20, FBI Employee: \u201cLike, what happened?\u201d<\/p>\n

10:43:37, FBI Employee: \u201cYou promised me this wouldn\u2019t happen. YOU PROMISED.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

10:43:43, FBI Employee: Okay, that might have been a lie…\u201d<\/p>\n

10:43:46, FBI Employee: \u201cI\u2019m very upset.\u201d<\/p>\n

10:43:47, FBI Employee: \u201chaha\u201d<\/p>\n

10:51:48, FBI Attorney 2: \u201cI am so stressed about what I could have done differently.\u201d<\/p>\n

10:54:29, FBI Employee: \u201cDon\u2019t stress. None of that mattered.\u201d 10:54:31, FBI Employee: \u201cThe FBI\u2019s influence.\u201d<\/p>\n

10:59:36, FBI Attorney 2: \u201cI don\u2019t know. We broke the momentum.\u201d 11:00:03, FBI Employee: \u201cThat is not so.\u201d<\/p>\n

11:02:22, FBI Employee: \u201cAll the people who were initially voting for her would not, and were not, swayed by any decision the FBI put out.\u00a0Trump\u2019s supporters are all poor to middle class, uneducated, lazy POS that think he will magically grant them jobs for doing nothing. They probably didn\u2019t watch the debates, aren\u2019t fully educated on his policies, and are stupidly wrapped up in his unmerited enthusiasm.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

417<\/p>\n

11:11:43, FBI Attorney 2: \u201cI\u2019m just devastated. I can\u2019t wait until I can leave today and just shut off the world for the next four days.\u201d<\/p>\n

11:12:06, FBI Employee: \u201cWhy are you devastated?\u201d<\/p>\n

11:12:18, FBI Employee: \u201cYes, I\u2019m not watching tv for four years.\u201d<\/p>\n

11:14:16, FBI Attorney 2: \u201cI just can\u2019t imagine the systematic disassembly of the progress we made over the last 8 years.<\/span> ACA is gone.<\/strong><\/span>Who knows if the rhetoric about deporting people, walls, and crap is true. I honestly feel like there is going to be a lot more gun issues, too, the crazies won finally. This is the tea party on steroids. And the GOP is going to be lost, they have to deal with an incumbent in 4 years. We have to fight this again. Also Pence is stupid.\u201d<\/p>\n

11:14:58, FBI Employee: \u201cYes that\u2019s all true.\u201d<\/p>\n

11:15:01, FBI Attorney 2: \u201cAnd it\u2019s just hard not to feel like the FBI caused some of this. It was razor thin in some states.\u201d<\/p>\n

11:15:09, FBI Employee: \u201cYes it was very thin.\u201d<\/p>\n

11:15:23, FBI Attorney 2: \u201cPlus, my god damned name is all over the legal documents investigating his staff.\u201d<\/p>\n

11:15:24, FBI Employee: \u201cBut no I absolutely do not believe the FBI had any part.\u201d<\/p>\n

11:15:33, FBI Attorney 2: \u201cSo, who knows if that breaks to him what he is going to do.\u201d…”<\/p>\n

No politics here<\/em><\/span>!<\/strong><\/p>\n