{"id":60522,"date":"2018-06-19T20:55:11","date_gmt":"2018-06-20T00:55:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=60522"},"modified":"2018-06-19T20:55:18","modified_gmt":"2018-06-20T00:55:18","slug":"the-daily-gouge-archive-monday-june-18th-2018","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=60522","title":{"rendered":"The Daily Gouge Archive, Monday, June 18th, 2018"},"content":{"rendered":"

It’s Monday, June 18th, 2018…but before we begin, here’s two rather incongruous headlines courtesy of\u00a0Townhall.com<\/em>:<\/strong><\/p>\n

American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology Requests New Late-Term Abortion Certification<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

American Medical Association Calls for Confiscation of Guns and Ammo, Universal Firearm Registration<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

So, one<\/em><\/span> branch of organized medicine, a science technically<\/span><\/em>\u00a0dedicated first and foremost<\/em><\/span> to the principle “Primum non nocere<\/em>” (First, do no harm<\/em>)\u00a0seeks certification in the art of murdering<\/em><\/span> the almost-born<\/em><\/span>, while another<\/em><\/span> seeks to impose its opinion<\/em><\/span> in an area in which it holds no particular expertise…if any at all<\/em><\/span>, if an Obamao-commissioned study by\u00a0the CDC is to be believed<\/em><\/span><\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Funny, we don’t seem to recall the AMA highlighting the “smoking gun” of the AIDS epidemic when it was wreaking havoc among the world’s gay population, the facts to the contrary…<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

…glaringly<\/em><\/span> notwithstanding.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ain’t it amazing “science” is only “settled” when it’s fabricated to support pre-conceived Progressive…<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

…goals and policies?!?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Now, here’s The Gouge!<\/strong><\/p>\n

At the top of Monday’s batting order, we offer two valued views on what partisan politics have wrought at the DOJ<\/em> and FBI<\/em>.\u00a0 First, as the\u00a0<\/strong>editors at NRO<\/em>\u00a0correctly conclude…<\/strong><\/p>\n

Yes, There WAS FBI Bias<\/a><\/span><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

“T<\/strong><\/span><\/span>here is much to admire in Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz\u2019s highly anticipated report on the FBI\u2019s Clinton-emails investigation.<\/span> Horowitz\u2019s 568-page analysis is comprehensive, fact-intensive, and cautious to a fault.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

It is also<\/span>, nonetheless, an incomplete exercise<\/span> \u2014 it omits half the story, the Russia investigation<\/span> \u2014 and it flinches from following the facts to their logical conclusion<\/span><\/strong>…<\/span><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

…The IG extensively takes on numerous issues related to the decision not to charge former secretary of state Hillary Clinton for, primarily, causing the retention and transmission of classified information on the non-secure \u201chomebrew\u201d server system through which she improperly and systematically conducted government business. (Our Dan McLaughlin usefully catalogues the topics Horowitz addresses\u00a0here<\/a><\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/span>.) If there is a single theme that ties the sprawling report together, however, it is bias<\/span><\/em>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Or, as the report<\/em><\/span> put it, \u201cthe question<\/em><\/span> of bias.\u201d It should not really be<\/span> a question<\/span>, because the evidence of anti-Trump bias on the part of the agents who steered the Clinton probe<\/span> \u2014 which was run out of headquarters, highly unusual for a criminal investigation \u2014 is immense<\/span><\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/span>…”<\/p>\n

Second, also courtesy of NRO<\/em>, Andy McCarthy explains why, when push came to shove, Horowitz did<\/em><\/span> in fact\u00a0flinch<\/em><\/span>:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n
\n

The IG\u2019s Report May Be Half-Baked<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/h1>\n

But who knows<\/span><\/a>?<\/span><\/h3>\n<\/div>\n<\/header>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

“Y<\/strong><\/span><\/span>ou\u2019ve got to hand it to Michael Horowitz: The Justice Department inspector general\u2019s much-anticipated\u00a0report<\/a><\/em><\/span>\u00a0on the Clinton-emails investigation may be<\/em><\/span> half-baked, but if it is<\/em><\/span>, it is the most comprehensive, meticulously detailed, carefully documented, thoughtfully reasoned epic in the history of half-bakery<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Why say do I say the report \u201cmay be<\/em><\/span>\u00a0half-baked\u201d?<\/span> Why don\u2019t I just come out and declare, \u201cThe report\u00a0is<\/span>\u00a0<\/em>half-baked\u201d? Well, I figure if I write this<\/em><\/span> column in the IG\u2019s elusive style, we\u2019ll have the Rosetta Stone we need<\/span> to decipher<\/span> the report<\/em>.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

See, you probably sense that I believe the report is<\/em><\/span> half-baked. But if I say<\/em><\/span> it \u201cmay be\u201d half-baked…well, technically that means it may\u00a0not<\/em><\/span>\u00a0be, too.<\/span> I mean, who really knows<\/em><\/span>, right<\/em><\/span>?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

If that annoys you, try wading through 568 pages of this stuff, particularly on the central issue of the investigators\u2019 anti-Trump bias. <\/span>The report acknowledges that contempt<\/span> for Trump was pervasive<\/span> among several of the top FBI and DOJ officials making decisions about the investigation<\/em>. So this deep-seated bias must<\/span> have affected the decision-making, right<\/span><\/em>?<\/span> Well<\/em>, the report concludes, who really knows<\/em><\/span>?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Not in so many words, of course.<\/span> The trick here<\/span> is the premise<\/span> the IG establishes from the start<\/span>:\u00a0It\u2019s not my job<\/span> to draw firm conclusions about why<\/span> things happened the way they did.<\/em>\u00a0In fact, it\u2019s not even my job<\/span> to determine whether investigative decisions were right or wrong<\/span>.<\/em>\u00a0<\/span>The cop-out is that we are dealing here with \u201cdiscretionary\u201d calls; therefore<\/em>, the IG rationalizes, the investigators must be given very broad latitude<\/em><\/span>. Consequently<\/em><\/span>, the IG says his job is not<\/span> to determine whether any particular decision was<\/em>\u00a0correct<\/em><\/span>; just whether, on some otherworldly scale of reasonableness<\/span>, the decision was\u00a0defensible<\/span><\/em>.<\/span> And he makes that<\/span> determination by looking at every decision in isolation<\/span><\/em>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

But is that<\/span> the way we evaluate decisions in the real world<\/span><\/em>?<\/strong><\/span>…”<\/p>\n