Speaking of Layers of Deception…

The campaign to discredit Cassidy Hutchinson has begun [More]

Leave it to The Los Angeles Times to cover up the disconnects and act as a megaphone for the kangaroo court.

The plan, of course, is to goad the agents into appearing so they can betray the trust of their appointments and be asked questions to elicit recollections of statements that can be used to further smear.

Question: Can’t the committee compel testimony if it really wants it?

The Rope-Selling Capitalist

Apple CEO Sucks Up to China in Interview With State-Owned Media [More]

He likes their kind of citizen disarmament laws, too! Except for his protection detail.

Sucking up to tyrants for special privileges denied the unwashed proletariat is kind of his thing.

Tim in a tumbrel has a kind of alliterative ring to it…

The Sins of the Father

Aceves’ father was brought in for questioning and told investigators that Aceves had mental illness in the past and had been placed in a mental health facility twice at the age of 16. The father said that Aceves was prescribed medication but that he stopped taking it after a couple of years. Aceves’ father told police that his son had purchased an assault rifle and that family members are scared knowing he has a weapon based on his past behavior. [More]

So who declared him safe enough to let out and why wasn’t refusing his meds grounds to put him back in?

Aceves’ father sounds like a great example of responsibility.

AzCDL: Arizona Legislature Adjourns

This weekend, the 55th Arizona legislature, second regular session adjourned “sine die.” The terms is Latin for “without a day,” and means that no further work is scheduled for the body this year. Any bills that were still in progress when the legislature adjourned are now dead. AzCDL bills that suffered this fate are … [More]

For those of you who live there or are considering moving…

The Real Crime

A man who shot and killed a passenger on a San Francisco subway commuter train will be charged with gun crimes but not homicide in what was “clearly” a case of self-defense after he was attacked with a knife, his attorney said Monday. [More]

When having the means of self-defense is illegal, the law is criminal. I think that’s why they’re reducing the charges to misdemeanors because they know that under Bruen standards, felony charges would result in a high-profile challenge and community anger over racist standards.

[Via bondmen]

Your Agreement is Mandatory

Disagreement has become an extremely sensitive issue lately; it was once thought that debate was an essential component to a strong and healthy democracy, however, we are now told that it is extremely dangerous, in fact, it may soon be categorised as a form of domestic terrorism. [More]

So we can no longer “agree to disagree”?

We can no longer just tolerate, we must now endorse?

[Via bondmen]

History Repeats Itself

McNamara’s Folly: The Use of Low-IQ Troops in the Vietnam War [Watch]

And

Army is accepting more low-quality recruits, giving waivers for marijuana to hit targets [More]

And, of course, God forbid we allow anything resembling that which the Founders deemed “necessary for the security of a free State.”

Anybody else getting an enemies-foreign-and-domestic-are-in-charge vibe?

[Via WiscoDave]

Tantrum by the Terrible Twos

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls for supreme court justices to be impeached – The congresswoman says Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch lied under oath to Congress about their views on Roe [More]

And:

Charlie Crist calls for impeaching Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh [More]

If anybody should be booted out, it’s these two oath-breaking totalitarian wannabes. Besides, I thought the protocol was they stuck to general terms and didn’t ask specific tough commitment questions in the job interview…?

“In recent decades a recurring Senate issue has been what kinds of questions are appropriate for Senators to pose to a Supreme Court nominee appearing at hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Particularly at issue has been whether, or to what extent, questions by committee members should seek out a nominee’s personal views on current legal or constitutional issues or on past Supreme Court decisions that have involved those issues. Usually, when Senators at confirmation hearings have asked Supreme Court nominees to comment on topical legal and constitutional issues, the nominees have firmly declined to do so. In those situations, the nominees typically have taken the position that answers to questions which convey their personal views would conflict with their obligation to avoid appearing to make commitments, or provide signals, as to how they would vote as a Justice on future cases.”

Which makes Susan Collins getting a private heads-up all the more objectionable.

[Via Jess]