Potential Mass Murder Stopped by Concealed Carry Holder OPEN THREAD

‘Hero’ stopped mass murder by crazed bar patron who was armed to the teeth, police say:

A concealed carry holder is being heralded as a hero by Arlington police for preventing mass murder by killing an “incoherent” gunman at a sports bar Wednesday evening.

Before he was shot about 6:15 p.m., the gunman killed the manager of Zona Caliente in the 6500 block of South Cooper Street, police spokesman Christopher Cook said.

Police later identified the gunman as 48-year-old James Jones of Grand Prairie and the victim as 37-year-old Cesar Perez of Duncanville. The man who killed Jones has not been identified.

Authorities later found two loaded guns and two knives on Jones, Cook said Thursday.

“We do believe he had the capacity to do much greater harm,” Cook said.

When Jones entered the business, some witnesses told police, he started yelling incoherently while standing at the bar.

“People didn’t know who he was yelling at,” Cook said.

Perez was trying to talk to Jones when he was fatally shot. Police do not believe they knew each other.

That’s when a customer fired his gun at Jones.

And according to the Arlington Voice:

The manager of Zona Caliente Sports Bar and Grill, 37-year-old Cesar Perez, was shot dead by a man who witnesses said entered the business acting “incoherent” and “strange.”

“When the suspect came in, he walked up to the bar and started yelling,” said police spokesperson Lt. Christopher Cook. “Customers said he was yelling incoherent and strange things.”

The suspect shooter has been identified by the Tarrant County Medical Examiner as James Jones, 48, of Grand Prairie.

“Without warning,” Jones drew a handgun and fatally shot Perez. Cook said there is no evidence that the shooter knew the manager.

A man who police are describing as a “Good Samaritan” happened to be at the bar carrying a concealed weapon when the shooting unfolded. He instructed his wife to take cover before opening fire on Jones.

[…]

“After he was struck once, the suspect started shooting at the front door,” Cook said. “We know people were trying to escape, but we’re not sure if he was just trying to harm others.”

Jones died from the gunshot wound sustained from the bar patron. That man is not expected to face charges, as the bar is a “blue sign” business. State law allows licensed holders to conceal carry into such an establishment.

Cook revealed that a second fully loaded handgun and two knives were also found on Jones’ person.

“Had the Good Samaritan not intervened, there could have further loss of life,” Cook said.

And DallasNews continues:

Cook said the customer, who was dining with his wife, “prevented further loss of life.”

The customer was carrying a handgun under the Texas concealed handgun license program, Cook later confirmed.

“We’re treating the good guy as sort of a hero,” he said.

All good citizens can thank our fellow bearer of a concealed weapon for preventing a potential mass killing. We lament the loss of Cesar Perez, but are grateful that we do not have to mourn the loss of others who were there that day.

Oklahoma's GOP Morons
Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
  • Scalia

    Most scientists ‘can’t replicate studies by their peers’:

    Science is facing a “reproducibility crisis” where more than two-thirds of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments, research suggests.

    This is frustrating clinicians and drug developers who want solid foundations of pre-clinical research to build upon.

    From his lab at the University of Virginia’s Centre for Open Science, immunologist Dr Tim Errington runs The Reproducibility Project, which attempted to repeat the findings reported in five landmark cancer studies.

    “The idea here is to take a bunch of experiments and to try and do the exact same thing to see if we can get the same results.”

    You could be forgiven for thinking that should be easy. Experiments are supposed to be replicable.

    The authors should have done it themselves before publication, and all you have to do is read the methods section in the paper and follow the instructions.

    Sadly nothing, it seems, could be further from the truth.

    After meticulous research involving painstaking attention to detail over several years (the project was launched in 2011), the team was able to confirm only two of the original studies’ findings.

    Two more proved inconclusive and in the fifth, the team completely failed to replicate the result.

    “It’s worrying because replication is supposed to be a hallmark of scientific integrity,” says Dr Errington.

    Concern over the reliability of the results published in scientific literature has been growing for some time.

    According to a survey published in the journal Nature last summer, more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments.

    […]

    The problem, it turned out, was not with Marcus Munafo’s science, but with the way the scientific literature had been “tidied up” to present a much clearer, more robust outcome.

    “What we see in the published literature is a highly curated version of what’s actually happened,” he says.

    “The trouble is that gives you a rose-tinted view of the evidence because the results that get published tend to be the most interesting, the most exciting, novel, eye-catching, unexpected results.

    The reproducibility difficulties are not about fraud, according to Dame Ottoline Leyser, director of the Sainsbury Laboratory at the University of Cambridge.

    That would be relatively easy to stamp out. Instead, she says: “It’s about a culture that promotes impact over substance, flashy findings over the dull, confirmatory work that most of science is about.”

    She says it’s about the funding bodies that want to secure the biggest bang for their bucks, the peer review journals that vie to publish the most exciting breakthroughs, the institutes and universities that measure success in grants won and papers published and the ambition of the researchers themselves.

    “Everyone has to take a share of the blame,” she argues. “The way the system is set up encourages less than optimal outcomes.”

    Sorry folks, but when scientists get into the “grants won,” rose tints and tidying up game, it’s ceased to be science. Global warming anybody?

    • pennywit

      I’m a little bit disappointed in you. Aren’t you going to address this recently published research into the penis as a social construct?

      • Jwb10001

        I need social reconstruction on mine then, addition of say 3″ to 4″. I’m also thinking of self identifying as a 15 year old high school student so I can fulfill the old “if I knew then what I know now” thing.

        • Retired military

          After you get your additon then self identify as a 19 year old college female student so you can use the women’s showers.

          BTW I recently received my required Transexual awareness training.
          This was part of the training. If a female walks into a female bathroom and there is a person with “male parts” using one of the showers then IF the female feels uncomfortable they should go and talk to their chain of command (not say something to the individual). This is also true for any federal building for govt employees.
          Thank you Barrack Obama.

      • Scalia

        “[T]oxic masculinity”—rich.

      • Scalia

        Acts 17
        21. For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.

        These nuts have nothing better to do than to say anything to establish their niche.

        • pennywit

          You will be happy to know that there’s a punchline:

          Assuming the pen names “Jamie Lindsay” and “Peter Boyle,” and writing for the fictitious “Southeast Independent Social Research Group,” we wrote an absurd paper loosely composed in the style of post-structuralist discursive gender theory. The paper was ridiculous by intention, essentially arguing that penises shouldn’t be thought of as male genital organs but as damaging social constructions. We made no attempt to find out what “post-structuralist discursive gender theory” actually means. We assumed that if we were merely clear in our moral implications that maleness is intrinsically bad and that the penis is somehow at the root of it, we could get the paper published in a respectable journal

          • jim_m

            I see you weren’t drawn in. Thank goodness.

          • jim_m

            I do find it particularly telling that a paper that is deliberately composed
            nonsense passes for serious argument defending left wing ideology.

          • The sad thing is that you can’t tell the nonsense paper from any other paper defending the left’s ideology.

            Which makes you wonder whether that random paper generator is much more frequently used than anyone would admit…

          • Scalia

            It also says:

            Sokal exposed an infatuation with academic puffery that characterizes the entire project of academic postmodernism. Our aim was smaller yet more pointed. We intended to test the hypothesis that flattery of the academic Left’s moral architecture in general, and of the moral orthodoxy in gender studies in particular, is the overwhelming determiner of publication in an academic journal in the field. That is, we sought to demonstrate that a desire for a certain moral view of the world to be validated could overcome the critical assessment required for legitimate scholarship. Particularly, we suspected that gender studies is crippled academically by an overriding almost-religious belief that maleness is the root of all evil. On the evidence, our suspicion was justified.3

      • jim_m

        Please tell us that you were not sucked in by this hoax too.

        In their tell-all article in Skeptic, the authors admit they jammed the paper full of jargon and made it purposefully incoherent. They said, “After completing the paper, we read it carefully to ensure it didn’t say anything meaningful, and as neither one of us could determine what it is actually about, we deemed it a success.” Finally, they made this particularly damning observation:

        We assumed that if we were merely clear in our moral implications that maleness is intrinsically bad and that the penis is somehow at the root of it, we could get the paper published in a respectable journal.

        It worked. That’s the state of social science in 2017.

        I might amend their last statement to say “Allegedly respectable journal”

      • Brett Buck

        That article has precepts and approach of such abject stupidity that could only have been created by an Ivy League education.

        • Retired military

          You have to have al least 3 college degrees to write an article of such abject stupidity.

    • jim_m

      This is not new. Science has gotten sloppy. Sadly, what is surprising is that anyone is trying to reproduce experiments at all. Most of the time scientific claims go untested because the academic climate is such that testing another scientist’s claims is considered offensive and a vulgar attack on the original author.

      It is also true about the grant process. It is set up such that researchers are encouraged never to find an answer to the questions they are looking into. If they actually find an answer their funding goes away. Experiments are therefore designed to uncover more riddles rather than solve any of them.

  • Scalia

    The New York Times’ Michael Schmidt admits he did not see the Trump-Comey memo he reported on.
    https://youtu.be/Jcy0ZxlE0f8

    • Brucehenry

      So Brian Williams, the supposedly “disgraced” anchor on the supposedly “liberal” news network, gives us the whole story and lets us decide for ourselves how much credence to put into the report.

      • jim_m

        Lying jackass defends man who has been caught in multiple outright lies. Bruce defends Brian Williams claiming that Williams disgrace is only supposed. Bruce apparently believes that Williams should be praise for his complete fabrications of the news on multiple occasions.

        If Bruce is going to openly support lies and fabrications and deny that they ever happened he should be banned form these pages.

        • Brucehenry

          Good morning Jim. We all know you want me banned because I’m the only one who ever calls you out for what you are — a raving loon. Do your worst. Loser. Snowflake.

          • jim_m

            I see you avoid discussing your defense of the profligate liar, Brian Williams. I assume it is because you lie as often and as obviously as he does and you want to get away with it too.

            Any time you want to defend his lies we would love to see your worthless spinning. Better yet, tell us how he has never lied and how his disgrace was so totally unjustified as you claimed above.

            I want you out because I don’t think this is a place for people who glorify liars.

          • Brucehenry

            Well you may be right in your inference that “supposedly disgraced” was the wrong phrase to describe Williams. I suppose I should have described him as “supposedly redeemed, once disgraced” or some other construction.

            EDIT: But great job flying off the handle about it! You are nothing if not reliable!

          • Vagabond661

            Or not open your mouth, or keyboard, and remove all doubt.

          • jim_m

            He was deservedly disgraced for being a serial fabulist and for offering lies as actual news on multiple occasions. Your scare quotes around the word disgraced demonstrate that you do not believe he was wrong in his behavior in any way, shape of form and that those who would consider his actions inappropriate are the ones who are incorrect.

            You show once again that you believe that any lie that advances your agenda is perfectly justified.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I can see how I was mistaken in describing him that way WHICH IS WHY I CORRECTED IT DUMBASS.

          • pennywit

            I find that if you stop feeding Jim he’ll go away eventually.

          • jim_m

            Bruce is incapable of posting something that isn’t an outright lie. I will continually call him on those.

          • Retired military

            Jim I think that that is a bit unfair characterization of Bruce’s posts. I dont agree with a lot of what he says but he does have a right to say his beliefs the same as us. I wish that you two would stop the character assaninations though. IMO it detracts from any points you are trying to make.

          • jim_m

            Up this thread Bruce is claiming that Trump gave code word intelligence to the Russians. He is lying. This has already been debunked thoroughly. McMaster has already gone on record saying that Trump could not have revealed the intel to the Russians that is being claimed because he had not been briefed to that level of detail at the time.

          • I think he understates the case.

          • Scalia

            Moreover, pennywit is objective enough to call out his side when they do goofball things. He’s also got enough sense to avoid swallowing everything the Left vomits.

          • Brucehenry

            “I don’t think this is a place for people who glorify liars” says the guy who helped elect Trump president of the United States.

            https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-v3YzeUiAWBw/WR8xBdq2aaI/AAAAAAAAVvo/TruAXqXVycgdEksTplePZm_cKn6U7XzHgCLcB/s640/steve%2Bsack1.jpg

          • Brett Buck

            Still with this stupid meme? Really, get some new material.

            Putting aside the fact that the Birther movement was started by your disgraced loser candidate’s campaign in 2007, and despite the fact that there are numerous unresolved issues with Obama’s citizenship documentation (like having an SSN issued in a state he was not a resident at any point), the real issue is that the press spent their entire effort trying to run interference for the asshole, without spending 1 second questioning their own motives. Now they are running with a completely spurious “russia hack” for which the people who have seen all the information with every reason to tell you about it, say there is *no evidence whatsoever” to support it. This associated with continual attacks on the topic from morning to night for the entire time he was the president. The only thing those situations have in common is that the press proceeded with no information, not one scintilla of objectivity, and without once questioning the purity of their own motives.

          • jim_m

            Like that radical right winger Camile Paglia?

            “Hillary, when she first declared that she was a candidate,” the bestselling author explained, “they asked her about her policies… and she refused to answer.”

            “They had to poll for her to find out what her policies were,” said Paglia, delineating Clinton’s failures with a detectable air of exasperation. “She was waiting for all her people to sift through polling data. They had to poll for her to find out what her policies were.”

            “That, for me, confirmed my complete lack of respect for her,” Paglia revealed. “That there was such a gap in time between when she declared her candidacy and when she would answer one single policy question.”

            Clinton’s discomfort with authenticity was clear in her relationship with the media, Paglia argued. “She never had a press conference, she’s incapable of doing it.”

          • Scalia

            She was hoping for a coronation. She got a kick to the backside.

          • Brucehenry

            Some would say Paglia has always been a crank and a kook. She has been one for at least the last 15 years, I know that.

          • Brett Buck

            Paglia is one of the few leftists I have any respect for. Not because I agree with much of what she says, but because she at least bothers to make a coherent and logically sound argument for her positions. And she thinks she *should* make such an argument.

            That certainly puts her in contrast to imbeciles who figure there doesn’t have to be a rational basis for their thoughts, “feeling something means it must be valid” types, who substitute any semblence of logical point with cutesy snark. The cutsier and snarkier, the more clever they think they are. When in fact, they are just smart-ass know-nothings, the kind that used to get beat up a lot in school.

            You know the type, I think.

          • Brucehenry

            Watchoo tryna say, Brett?

          • Nothing within your (demonstrated here) ken.

          • Demonstrably.

          • He is hardly alone in desiring to see you here no more.

            And the projection with you remains very strong indeed.

        • Indeed.

    • Wild_Willie

      What the left never seems to get is the precedent that they set. If and when a time comes there is a dem leader, media reports alone can steer an investigation. Just like Reid and the new rules, came back and bit him. ww

  • Scalia

    ‘I Have A Sickness:’ Ex-Congressman Anthony Weiner Pleads Guilty To Sexting Teen Girl

    NEW YORK (CBSNewYork/AP) — Disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner has admitted exchanging sexually explicit text messages with a teenage girl.

    Weiner, 52, surrendered Friday morning and was taken to Manhattan federal court, where he pleaded guilty to a charge of transferring obscene material to a minor.

    Weiner did not comment as he walked out of the courthouse, but in court he said his “… destructive impulses brought great devastation to my family and friends and destroyed my life’s dream of public service.”

    His plea was explicit.

    “I engaged in obscene communication with this teenager,” Weiner said, “Including sharing explicit images, and encouraging her to engage in sexually explicit conduct.”

    He cried as he apologized to the teen saying, “I have a sickness, but I do not have an excuse.”

    Weiner’s attorney said his client “accepted full responsibility” and “apologized, offered no excuses, and made a commitment to make amends.” He said Weiner is “focused on his recovery.”

    As CBS2 Political Reporter Marcia Kramer explained, the judge told Weiner he would have to register as a sex offender.

    Sources tell CBS2 Huma Abedin’s attorneys are filing her divorce papers Friday afternoon in Lower Manhattan.

    • Good news, if true.

      And don’t allow his ‘treatment and recovery’ to interfere with his jail time…

  • Scalia
  • Scalia

    In what is hoped to be a harbinger of things to come:

    Four Planned Parenthood clinics to close in Iowa after defunding:

    Four Planned Parenthood clinics in Iowa will close this summer after Republican Gov. Terry Branstad signed a law essentially defunding abortion providers.

    The four centers, set to shutter June 30, regularly served more than 14,000 people in the past three years, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland said on Twitter Thursday.

    Branstad signed an appropriations bill last week that called for the state to discontinue the federal Medicaid family planning network waiver, foregoing about $3 million in federal funding.

    The state will now create its own family planning network so it can prohibit funding to clinics that provide abortions.

    • Par4Course

      The Planned Parenthood Clinic on Happy Joe Drive in Bettendorf, Iowa, will be closing June 30 – although, according to the Quad City Times, PP’s news release said abortions would continue until PP’s building is sold. PP clinics in Sioux City, Burlington and Keokuk will also close, although 8 other PP clinics in Iowa will remain open.

  • Scalia

    Lest we forget, a bit of news from just a few months ago:

    More Evidence Reveals Obama Influenced Clinton’s FBI Investigation

    In an interview with Fox News this past April, President Obama asserted that he did not put pressure on the FBI’s criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server. “I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI—not just in this case but in any case,” he said. There is now mounting evidence suggesting Obama’s claim was false.

    “Newly disclosed emails show top Obama Administration officials were in close contact with Hillary Clinton’s nascent presidential campaign in early 2015 about the potential fallout from revelations that the former secretary of state used a private email server,” reported Bryon Tau for The Wall Street Journal on October 7. The emails were obtained by the Republican National Committee through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit requesting those records.

    A few months before White House Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri went to work for her campaign, emails show her in damage control for Clinton as early as 2015, when news first broke that Clinton’s private server existed. In one chain of emails between Palmieri and State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki, Palmieri asked Psaki to ensure that Secretary of State John Kerry wasn’t asked about Clinton’s private email server during an upcoming CBS interview. “Good to go on killing CBS idea,” Psaki responded back to Palmieri, according to the Journal, adding, “going to hold on any other TV options just given the swirl of crap out there.”

    And why was the president so forceful in his defense of Clinton during an FBI investigation?

    In March 2015, The New York Times reported that Obama said he didn’t know Clinton was using a private email address. That turned out to be false, as the second FBI report on their investigation into Clinton’s private server revealed that the president used a pseudonym in email communications with her. “How is this not classified?” Clinton aide Huma Abedin asked the FBI during their interview. Obama’s use of a pseudonym suggests he not only was aware of Clinton’s private server, but he knew it wasn’t secured to communicate with Clinton, as there were no security officers to mark the correspondence as classified.

    Obama’s administration has intervened to delay several FOIA requests until after Election Day to shield Clinton from further scrutiny.

    In October 2015, the White House stopped the release of emails between Clinton and Obama, citing the need to keep presidential communications confidential.

    In June, the Obama administration stepped in to delay the State Department fulfilling an FOIA request from International Business Times for emails regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership until 2017. “The delay was issued in the same week the Obama administration filed a court motion to try to kill a lawsuit aimed at forcing the federal government to more quickly comply with open records requests for Clinton-era State Department documents,” reported David Sirota.

    President Obama has also repeatedly defended Clinton when questioned about her private server, blaming the controversy on politics. But while the FBI was conducting an investigation, Obama should have refrained from making his own judgment on the case.

    And with respect to Hillary’s deletion of “personal” emails, Clinton attorney, Erika Rottenberg, has another take:

    *For my question*, it’s basically some variation of [not quite phrased right yet]: I know when I talk to my friends who are attorneys we are all struggling with what happened to the emails and aren’t satisfied with answers to date. While we all know of the occasional use of personal email addresses for business, none of my friends circle can understand how it was viewed as ok/secure/appropriate to use a private server for secure documents AND why further Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents without providing anyone outside her circle a chance to weigh in. It smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of thing I’ve either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc.

    Obama knew he was lying to the People, and he no doubt did it to save his own skin (given the fact that he had adopted a pseudonym and had been sending unsecured emails to Clinton). For all this talk about impeachment and investigations, we have a genuine cover-up where crimes were committed, but so-called liberals, who are chagrined at having been beaten by the likes of Trump, couldn’t care less about integrity and the rule of law. This frothing at the mouth is therapy for their bruised egos—nothing more.

  • Scalia

    Here we go again:

    In Defense of Transracialism:

    Abstract

    Former NAACP chapter head Rachel Dolezal’s attempted transition from the white to the black race occasioned heated controversy. Her story gained notoriety at the same time that Caitlyn Jenner graced the cover of Vanity Fair, signaling a growing acceptance of transgender identity. Yet criticisms of Dolezal for misrepresenting her birth race indicate a widespread social perception that it is neither possible nor acceptable to change one’s race in the way it might be to change one’s sex. Considerations that support transgenderism seem to apply equally to transracialism. Although Dolezal herself may or may not represent a genuine case of a transracial person, her story and the public reaction to it serve helpful illustrative purposes.

    […]

    In this article, I argue that considerations that support transgenderism extend to transracialism.1 Given this parity, since we should accept transgender individuals’ decisions to change sexes, we should also accept transracial individuals’ decisions to change races. I entertain and reject four objections that suggest a society should not accept an individual’s decision to change races. I then turn to Sally Haslanger to argue for an account of race that allows for racial membership on the basis of social treatment, and, I will add, self-identification. I conclude that if some individuals genuinely feel like or identify as a member of a race other than the one assigned to them at birth—so strongly to the point of seeking a transition to the other race—we should accept their decision to change races.2

    • pennywit

      That author’s gotten some pretty severe pushback in the academic community.

      • Scalia

        Some of it is from writers who are twisted over her terminology. The pushback I’ve seen is akin to bugs scurrying for cover when you lift a rock.

        • jim_m

          I’d have to agree. The biggest push back seems to be from people offended that their reasoning is shown to be a bunch of BS.

          • “It’s PHILOSOPHY! You’re not SUPPOSED to understand it!”

          • jim_m

            Yeah,such is the sorry state of modern philosophy. You could understand philosophy right up to Sartre. Not much since then has made much sense.

  • Scalia
    • Scalia

      Comey the grandstander:
      https://youtu.be/yEYoqi_bPlM

      • Brucehenry

        The FOX people keep acting as if the special counsel’s only mission is to get something on Trump personally. It’s not. It is to build a case against Flynn, who apparently DID commit a crime or two, and to see if Manafort, or Page, or maybe Kushner, or someone else in the campaign took money or acted as an unregistered agent of a foreign power while also working on the Trump campaign. The only crime Trump should worry about personally is if he acted in any way to conceal such wrongdoing. Or if he acts that way going forward.

        If he didn’t, so be it. Mueller is apparently a square shooter and can be relied upon to act with integrity. But I bet Trump did, or will, and I hope he did or will and gets caught so we can be rid of him.

        • Retired military

          Bruce
          You are the first liberal who I have seen that has put it like this
          Just about every liberal I see on TV is saying this is worse than watergate and bringing up Hitler.

          But you did leave out that the supposed reason is to see if Russian interfered with the election. Noone on the left that I have heard from has even mentioned the possibility of collusion or wrong doing by the Clinton team and there is plenty of evidence to at least suggest that there is something there on that side.

          • Brucehenry

            Can you imagine Nixon giving code-word level intel to the Russians? Trump is a danger to us all.

            If Trump hasn’t yet or doesn’t do anything impeachable in this matter he will soon, I wager. He has no idea how to behave as president, and is a stupid, stupid man.

          • jim_m

            Trump has not given such intel to the Russians. THe whole “Trump gave classified info to the Russians” meme is a lie, He gave no sources or methods and you forget the fact that the President can declassify anything he wants.

          • Brucehenry

            Haven’t forgotten. Sure, he declassified it on the spot, in the process of giving it to them. Not a lie at all. It’s just that some wish to excuse it. It’s true it wasn’t illegal. But just think — it would have been had Pence, or the SecDef, or the WH chief of staff done it.

            EDIT: If you think Trump had some kind of cunning, long-game reason for spilling this intel to the Russians I suggest you are wrong and haven’t been observing this buffoon in action the past couple years.

          • jim_m

            McMaster has already debunked this idiocy.

          • Brucehenry

            The National Security Adviser has an interest in there not being panic in the streets at the thought of the President of the United States blabbing code word intel, obtained from Israel, to the Russians.

          • jim_m

            Once again, I will posit that you are willing to accept the unnamed, unsourced, irrational allegations of the media an you are unwilling to accept the words of an informed professional and that this is a demonstration of your being a blinkered ideologue.

          • Brucehenry

            Sure the whole thing is just a tempest in a teapot if this McMaster guy says so. Color me a little more skeptical than that.

          • jim_m

            You are the one saying that after nearly a year of investigation into collusion that it must have taken place despite zero evidence having been found to support your childish conspiracy mongering. As I have pointed out, you are an ideologue and not very interested in truth.

          • Brucehenry

            And Whitewater was going to be about financial shenanigans but it wound up being about perjury regarding an improper sexual affair. Shit just kept turning up.

            EDIT: Also, the subject of collusion is a different one than whether or not Trump blabbed shit he shouldn’t have to the Russians in this Oval Office meeting.

          • jim_m

            I will simply note that you do not deny any of my points in the last comment nor do you even make the slightest attempt to refute them.

          • Brucehenry

            No I don’t bother to “refute” the same old shit you say every time, Jim.

            Also, see my edit.

          • jim_m

            Noted that your edit continues to avoid the point. And it doubles down on your belief in a story that could be sourced by no one as better informed than a drunk in the gutter.

          • Brucehenry

            The point was whether or not Trump did something he shouldn’t have in that meeting. You want to reintroduce the subject of collusion from another part of this thread.

            Again, what Trump did was legal, because as de-classifier in chief, he is technically allowed to declassify AS HE BLABS. The fact that it was the Prez, and not the VP or the SecDef doing the blabbing, made it legal.

            It was still blabbing, it was still stupid, and it was Classic Trump, with his tiny hands and giant tender ego.

          • jim_m

            You have no proof that he did anything, as I point out in my edit above. You assume that he did based on your ideology and on that basis alone.

            I bring up the collusion nonsense because it is further evidence of your belief in irrational conspiracy theories based once more on the necessity creating by your devotion to your ideology and noting more.

            Your beliefs are as pathetic as those who claimed that the Clintons were assassinating everyone around them for financial and political gain.

          • Brucehenry

            A belief that was being tossed around here last night by several regular commenters, ya missed it.

            Just imagine FOX or the Washington Times had a story in 2013 that Obama had blabbed code word level intel, given to us by the Israelis, to the Russian ambassador and Foreign Minister. Imagine being satisfied that there was “nothing to see here” upon being reassured by Susan Rice that there was nothing to see here.

          • jim_m

            Except that with Susan Rice we have abundant evidence of her lying to the public on multiple occasions. We also have abundant evidence of obama’s desire to betray Israel and in particular its Prime Minister.

          • Brucehenry

            So you would have believed the story, or at least given it some credence and wanted it followed up, in my hypothetical, right?

            In this case we have abundant evidence of Trump’s ummm, obsequiousness to Putin, to say the least.

          • jim_m

            NO. We have proof of Trump’s public pronouncements, but nothing about his private conversations. As it has already been demonstrated that some, if not many, of his public statements have been made for the purpose of achieving a negotiating position, it is not reasonable to take most of what he says in public (and especially on twitter) seriously.

          • Brucehenry

            Well we are going to have to agree to disagree here Jim Bob. Good night.

          • jim_m

            The only President to conclusively demonstrate his incapacity for leadership was “lead from behind” obama. The very fact that they had to come up with a term to defend his lack of leadership should be proof enough of that fact.

          • I thought the mouse in your pocket died of radiated stupidity.

          • Retired military

            You mean like this
            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html

            WikiLeaks cables: US agrees to tell Russia Britain’s nuclear secrets
            The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
            efence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.
            The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.
            Details of the behind-the-scenes talks are contained in more than 1,400 US embassy cables published to date by the Telegraph, including almost 800 sent from the London Embassy, which are published online today. The documents also show that:
            • America spied on Foreign Office ministers by gathering gossip on their private lives and professional relationships.
            Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.
            Professor Malcolm Chalmers said: “This appears to be significant because while the UK has announced how many missiles it possesses, there has been no way for the Russians to verify this. Over time, the unique identifiers will provide them with another data point to gauge the size of the British arsenal.”
            Duncan Lennox, editor of Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems, said: “They want to find out whether Britain has more missiles than we say we have, and having the unique identifiers might help them.”

          • jim_m

            But you see when a Dem betrays the US or its allies it’s OK.

            I swear that the only reason that the dems are upset about Russian influence in the election is that for the first time in over 100 years the Russians interceded against them. They are so used to being on the side of America’s enemies they are pissed off when they find that they are not.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes that seems to me to be unwise too. But it is different in that it was a policy discussed in advance by US experts and agreed upon by consensus, one assumes, in the highest circles of defense policy making. In Trump’s case, he apparently just blurted out secrets without telling anyone in advance he was planning to do so.

            While McMaster says that “sources and methods” weren’t revealed, he doesn’t deny that Trump’s sudden disclosure of the information in question took everyone by surprise.

          • Retired military

            It has been stated numerous times that Meuller ‘s investigation will MOST LIKELY not be anything like whitewater, Ken starr, Plame or anything else. The rules have changed.

          • Hopefully things will be expedited, instead of allowing it to drag out for a couple of years.

          • Not all (I suspect none) National Security Advisers have been as un-ethical and prevaricating as Susan Rice, but we can see why you might think so.

          • Brucehenry

            Sure Kissinger never told a lie in his career.

          • By which you prove your lack of reading comprehension since you have not established that Henry Kissinger is more ethics deprived and more dishonest than Susan Rice while simultaneously confirming that you do indeed believe all National Security Advisers fall to that incredibly low level.

            That is the classical progressive projection.

          • Brucehenry

            What is the meaning of the sentence fragment “you do indeed all National Secruity(sic) Advisers fall to that incredibly low level”?

          • Brucehenry
          • jim_m

            Wow, you seem fixated on one scandal. What slackers these guys must have been. Rice has lied over and over again on multiple issues. In fact it is easier to list off the times she has told the public the truth about anything.

            Here let me try:

          • Brucehenry

            yeah selling weapons to an avowed enemy and giving the proceeds to death squads seemed like a kinda big deal to me. I’m still a little butthurt about it.

          • jim_m

            Really? Because I have not heard you complain one bit about obama providing weapons to ISIS in Syria. Please, tell us more about how you are butt hurt about obama’s foreign policy failures.

          • Brucehenry

            Please tell us more about the sources in the Obama administration, who were in the room when it was decided to “provide weapons to ISIS,” who have gone on record saying these allegations are true.

          • jim_m

            They are every bit as good as your Russia sources.

          • Brucehenry

            Maybe they are, but you obviously believe them as Gospel, yet criticize me for giving credence to mine.

          • jim_m

            No. I simply find someone in a position to have accurate knowledge who is willing to go on record to be more credible than a person who is not in such a position who refuses to be identified.

            That is the material differences between our positions an I again point out that it is why you are falling into irrational conspiracy mongering

          • Brucehenry

            So you DON’T believe Obama “provided weapons to ISIS” then?

          • jim_m

            I do indeed believe that they did because it has been widely reported in the mainstream media.

            An American arms dealer claims he was made a scapegoat for an Obama and Clinton-led 2011 plot to arm Libyan rebels that saw arms flowing to Al Qaeda, ISIS and the Benghazi attackers.

            Marc Turi faced trial for illegally selling arms, but charges in the five-year, $10million case were dropped on October 5.

            That’s because, he told Fox News, Democrats were worried about political blowback for Clinton if it emerged that the government had accidentally put weapons in the hands of America’s enemies.

            The difference is that I believe someone that is willing to be named and go on the record with their allegations with first hand knowlege of the events.

            That, and inept obama policy put weapons into the hands of those who we should have known would convey them to ISIS

            After analyzing thousands of videos and images taken in Iraq and Syria,
            Amnesty determined that a large proportion of ISIS’ current military
            arsenal is made up of “weapons and equipment looted, captured or
            illicitly traded from poorly secured Iraqi military stocks.”

          • Brucehenry

            Nearly every insurgency in modern history gained a large proportion of their weapons similarly. Including the Viet Cong and the Sunni insurgency in Iraq from 2003 onwards.

          • The National Security Adviser both in that role and as a serving officer of the United States Army has a duty to report any activity which could reveal sources and methods.

          • Retired military

            We have had that discussion Bruce.
            Would Nixon do it? No. But this isnt the 70s either.
            I have read that Trump was unaware of the origin of the material.
            Do I think Trump should be a bit more careful about what he says and when? I wont argue the point.
            Does what he did rise to the level of impeachment? Collusion? being a russian puppet? No. Did similar things happen under Obama? yes. As we saw during the plame case it doesnt matter to the press what it is as long as they can try to pin it on a republcan. When it was found out that Armitage was the source all the MSM dropped it. Democrats went from calling for frog marching someone to Not uttering a word about it faster than the Clinton foundation donations dried up on Nov 10,

        • jim_m

          You have stumbled into the truth. Too bad the rest of the left doesn’t realize what you do, and to bad that the few that do are up in arms that Muller isn’t out to get Trump and no one else.

          • Brucehenry

            This will be a long drawn out process similar to Whitewater. It may lead to something no one has thought of or found out about yet.

          • jim_m

            The only reason I have been against a special counsel is that it will prolong the interval in which the public will find out what happened and very likely result in the public being shielded from knowledge of any details.

          • Or they’ll investigate things for the next three years, ultimately finding nothing … but the media’s going to be putting out breathless articles every week about how indictments are just around the corner…

            Guess we’ll see, eh?

          • Brucehenry

            Yup.

          • Scalia

            CTRL+SHIFT+DELETE will bring up a box. You can choose what to eliminate. The very top box is a menu drop-down which allows you to choose what time-frame the deletion will occur. I choose “the beginning of time.” I normally clear out at least the first four boxes (Browsing history, Download history, Cookies, and Cached images and files). If you have Chrome save your passwords, DO NOT check, the box that says “Passwords.”

            You really should get an ad-block program. Your website problems with Wizbang will go away.

          • Brucehenry

            Thank you.

        • Par4Course

          “Mueller is apparently a square shooter …” We’ll see. Mueller is close friends with former FBI Director Comey, giving him a motive to discredit the President. There is no crime involved, even if someone on Team Trump suggested that the Russians hack Podesta’s e-mail (his password was “password”) and turn the results over to Wikileaks. If anything, those leaks convinced a few Crazy Bernie voters that they were right to stay home rather than going to vote for Hillary.

          • Brucehenry

            I have heard of Mueller’s friendship with Comey but have not heard one politician or talking head say anything negative about Mueller’s integrity, so, yeah, we’ll see.

            It looks very much like at least one or two crimes WERE involved, committed by Flynn. Were those crimes concealed in any way by any other administration official? Were there any others in the campaign acting as unregistered agents of a foreign power, as it appears Flynn was? Did anyone act to conceal that behavior?

      • They should decliine to hear his testimony until he is under oath and the documents already demanded have been furnished and reviewed.

  • Brucehenry

    Wizbang has once again begun being unresponsive to my keyboard in a way other sites are not. The little circle never stops spinning and the letters appear several seconds after I type them. This has happened in the past, goes away for a while, and starts up again. Maybe it’s just my 3 year old laptop, but maybe it’s Disqus or something else. I use Chrome. Any thoughts or help would be appreciated.

    • jim_m

      It’s DIsqus. You are a jackass and a liar and should take it as a hint to stay away.

      • Brucehenry

        Maybe you’re right

    • Retired military

      I am thinking maybe your connection or else with Disqus. Chrome has been relable in my experience.

      At work we use an automated system and when we do updates sometimes they take hours to catch up due to the resources the server has (no it is not in someone;s bathroom closet 🙂 )

    • Scalia

      I use Chrome too. I don’t experience delay issues. Do you have an ad-blocking program for your browser?

      • Brucehenry

        No and I would feel kind of guilty installing one. Wizbang doesn’t charge me for the hours of amusement I find here. The least I can do is see the ads.

        • jim_m

          Step into the 21st century and get an ad blocker. You can always white list sites that you feel like you are obligated to view their ads. It will also make you more secure

    • Stop coming here. That will fix a whole raft of problems.

    • Brett Buck

      I have had something similar happen from time to time, but I haven’t found out why it happens (very rarely and intermittent) or what causes it. I copy the text I wrote, and reload the page, paste the text back into a new replay, and that usually cures it.

      • Brucehenry

        Thank you for your reply sir.

    • Haven’t seen that happen… I use Chrome also.

      Have you tried emptying your cache lately?

      • Brucehenry

        Thanks for replying. “I don’t know what ’emptying my cache’ means or how to go about it,” he said sheepishly.

        • Go to Settings, go to the bottom, click on Advanced Settings, you’ll see ‘Privacy’, and the button ‘Clear Browsing Data’. then you can pick and choose what you want to clear out. Hope this helps you!

          • Scalia

            Or, CTRL+SHIFT+DELETE will bring up the same box. ☺️

          • Brucehenry

            Thanks both to you and to Lawson.

  • Brucehenry

    Krugman says what I’ve been saying for the last 10 days. What’s it gonna take for y’all to wake up to the danger we’re in?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/opinion/whats-the-matter-with-republicans.html

    • jim_m

      This is the same Krugman who predicted a historic market crash following the Trump election? One that the US would never recover from? I would argue that there is no point in listening to anything such a partisan hack would say because he has been demonstrated to be incapable of rational thought which has any relationship to reality.

      • Vagabond661

        Kinda fun watching the Looney Left slowly spin out of control, though.

        • jim_m

          Funny that Bruce thinks Krugman still credible after all the insane fantasies that Krugman has published over the last 10 years which conclusively demonstrate that he is detached from reality and only a parody of a political and economic commentator.

          • Brucehenry

            Krugman could be as wrong about everything the last 10 years as you say and still be right in this article. And is.

          • jim_m

            No. He’s every bit as wrong as ever. This is the correct take on things.

          • Brucehenry

            Some decent points and a lot of excuse-making, plus a lot of giving Trump voters credit for motivations I don’t believe many had.

            Perhaps the best thing that could happen is Trump saying Fuck It This Is Too Hard and resigning. He wouldn’t do it for the sake of the country but he will if he just gets bored or too frustrated.

          • jim_m

            There are a lot of different reasons for voting for Trump. Most voted against Hillary. Similarly, there were a lot of reasons that people chose to vote for obama. Not all of them were disgusting racists, but most were.

          • Vagabond661

            Best thing for you. Not for “Murica.

          • Brucehenry

            I despise Pence and everything he stands for but at least he’s not an insecure man-baby, volatile and stupid, like Trump.

          • Vagabond661

            That’s funny considering the Looney Left are the ones acting like a 2 year old not getting their way.

          • Brucehenry

            Really? See Scalia’s linked video clip.

          • Vagabond661

            So blocking traffic is not a temper tantrum? The video highlights the antifa’s cry baby agenda. They should be called the infantifa.

          • jim_m

            Blocking traffic is a crime. It is also a direct threat to the safety of the public which is why several states have already passed laws allowing people to run these a-holes down. Blocking traffic without a permit is a form of assault and it is a clear threat to do bodily harm to anyone who needs to pass. It is a provocation to violence and any violence that results is to blame on the people who started the whole thing by illegally blocking traffic and threatening the safety of those around them.

          • Brucehenry

            NC is among those states, and the law’s backers vehemently deny that the law allows people to “run these a-holes down.”

            But you are right that it is illegal and shouldn’t be employed (in most cases).

          • Vagabond661

            “Employed” is the operative word.

          • jim_m

            The law does not allow you to deliberately run them over for sport. It allows you to incidentally run them over if you do so in an attempt to get away from them.

          • Brucehenry

            But you characterize it as allowing people “to run these a-holes over” in an approving manner. I’m sure, and many people worry, that other might-makes-right bullies like yourself will read it that way and people will die as a result.

          • jim_m

            I do approve of running leftists over. And not just for blocking traffic. I don’t care what happens to them any more than they care what happens to me.

          • Brucehenry

            We knew that about you, Jim, it’s the guy who posted this video that kinda surprises me a little.

          • Brucehenry

            An anthem for Trump:

          • Vagabond661

            This is also funny since the Looney Left is believing every conspiracy theory that Big Media is spewing. But it also entertaining, so don’t stop. We all chuckle at your antics, your huffing and puffing and righteous indignation over contrived scandals while turning a blind eye to your own.

            Don’t you think moderates see this? Don’t you think Reagan Democrats see this? You have overthrown logic for your hatred of all thing not Liberal.

          • Brucehenry

            Well apparently, career public servants Rosenstein and Mueller believe that these matters should be looked into further. If you read my comments over again, I have not accused Trump of any crime (but I hope he committed or commits one and is caught). I do tend to believe that Trump “blurted out in a braggadocious manner” things he shouldn’t have to two top Russian officials, even though McMaster denies that sources and methods were compromised. I do concede that Trump committed no illegal act in doing so, since he is the de-classifier in chief, but as I have said, what he did was stupid and Classic Trump, blundering, incompetent, boastful and harmful to America.

            I think moderates DO see, or are at least beginning to see, what an embarrassment and a danger Trump constitutes, and so I am glad it is getting the coverage it is getting.

          • Vagabond661

            Like I said, keep it up. It’s entertaining to us but others have had enough of hysterical chicken little crap.

          • jim_m

            Bruce is now playing the game of bringing up the mad conspiracy theories and then talking about them as though someone else is believing in them and supporting the theories.

          • Brucehenry

            You mean like comin’-fer-yer-shootin-arns, FEMA camps and jackbooted NBP thugs manning every polling place?

          • Vagabond661

            No, i mean the “safe space”, Trump is colluding with Russia, Comey is great, no Comey is bad, no Comey is Great, i can marry a tree, I can marry two people, i identify as a woman…no man no wait there are no genders and by the way human breast milk is not natural. babies are not babies in the womb therefore invaluable unless we want to sell their body parts for profit.

          • Brucehenry

            Well ya got the selling body parts stuff down. Debunked.

          • Please show where the conspiracies you list:

            comin’-fer-yer-shootin-arns
            FEMA camps
            jackbooted NBP thugs manning every polling place

            Have been discussed in a Post (not to be confused with your diversions in comments) here on Wizbang.

            You are also invited to retract and apologize when you fail to do so.

          • Brucehenry

            Well I’m certain that Obama’s nefarious intention to take away the Second Amendment rights of law-abidin’ gun owners has been discussed here, as have the NBPP and mentions of FEMA re-education camps, whether in hyperbolic jest or in all seriousness, but certainly I have no intention of going through Wizbang’s archives to prove a point I wasn’t making.

            Vagabond said “OTHERS” were tired of “hysterical chicken little” crap. Meaning, I assumed, “others” — non-Wizbang readers. See it is his contention that Wizbang readers — “us” he says, find my “chicken little crap” entertaining, but these unnamed others are weary of it. In response, I asked about some other chicken little crap that I have found some of these unnamed “others” seem to be quite entertained by.

            Is Jim’s reading difficulty contagious or something?

          • You made allegations.

            You refuse to support those allegations when challenged.

            You are an inveterate liar and you should be banned.

            +Scalia,

            This is under your post. Care to share your opinion as a Moderator?

          • Brucehenry

            Ha ha you can’t fucking read either.

          • Scalia

            My opinion is that Bruce’s logical fallacies are myriad, but this community, including yours truly, has pointed that out on numerous occasions. In my opinion, he has neither spammed our boards nor has been a troll, so I’m not inclined to reach for Thor’s hammer.

            Lying can get a person banned, but that depends on what the lie is about and whether the offender is willing to apologize. I generally let the insults fly unless a person is accused of criminal acts or is the victim of defamation. Insults have been characteristic of this blog for years, so I won’t change things now.

            Yes, Bruce has misrepresented what others believe, but IMO, I’ve seen other misrepresent his views too. He misrepresented a post of mine in this thread, but when I pointed it out, he apologized. In heated advocacy, exaggerations may abound, and if somebody has a complaint, I’m willing to hear it, but personal disdain does not, in my book, justify banning somebody.

          • Vagabond661

            I identified “others” earlier as moderates and Reagan Democrats.

          • Brucehenry

            OK. So do you think moderates and Reagan Democrats believe that Obama was a-comin’-fer-their-guns, that Planned Parenthood was selling baby parts, or that the President’s birth certificate was fake? Because that’s the kind of “chicken little crap” that was espoused by the right, and that got some support here over the years at least in the comments.

            By contrast, in this matter the Deputy Attorney General, appointed by Trump and confirmed by the Senate 94-6 I believe, considered that maybe a Special Counsel should look into this particular stretch of sky to be sure it ain’t falling. And the said Special Counsel, a man nearly universally lauded for his integrity and credibility, accepted the job.

          • Vagabond661

            NO the obama coming for guns is what you alleged. Obama loved guns so much he sold them to the Mexican drug cartel.

          • Brucehenry

            Snark and deflection because you have no serious answer.

          • Vagabond661

            To what? Do you have a serious question?

          • Brucehenry

            Geez. Yes.

            Serious men, career public servants, are undertaking a Special Counsel investigation into a matter you keep calling a pile of chicken little crap. If it is, why are these people looking into it, do you reckon? Why is the fact that the Special Counsel investigation exists being lauded by Democrats AND Republicans?

          • Vagabond661

            Rosenstein said in a statement, “My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command.”

            Where is the fire? I see your chicken little crap but I fail to see it in Rosenstein’s statement.

            Can we go back and ask why Bill Clinton met with Lynch on the tarmac too?

          • Brucehenry

            Right and I have never said that prosecution is warranted (except maybe in the Flynn matter). But there would be no need to appoint a special counsel at all if the whole thing was chicken little nonsense.

            I am perfectly fine with seeing what, eventually, Mueller reports. A little impatient, I admit, but fine.

          • Vagabond661

            The only public interest in this is the Looney Left and Big Media. The only reason this stories drags on with no evidence is because it’s all Big Media has to smear Trump’s presidency.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh OK that’s more chicken little stuff from the right — “Big Media” and its control of “:the narrative.”

          • Vagabond661

            Well at least you admit it.

          • Brucehenry

            Again, no serious answer. Are Rosenstein and Mueller tools of Big Media? Or are they serious public servants honestly trying to look into what may or may not become a scandal?

          • Vagabond661

            Again I responded to your chicken little question with fact from Rosenstein. As to the mindset of Rosenstein and Mueller. That would be conjecture.

            Or if you are asking my impression of them….well i don’t do impressions.

          • Brucehenry

            Another flip reply in lieu of a serious one. Rosenstein, appointed by President Trump to his current position and confirmed by the Senate 94-6, thinks this matter warrants further investigation. Mueller, former head of the FBI and praised virtually universally in political and legal circles, accepted the job and takes it seriously.

            You and Jim, blog commenters and wingnuts par excellence (no offense!) think it’s a pile of chicken little crap.

            Let’s see, who should I believe?

          • Vagabond661

            Rosenstein “What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command.”

            He thinks it warranted because of public (Big Media Spin) interest.

            I see why Jim and Rodney lose their patience with you. You are blowing smoke chuckles. And make no mistake about it, I think YOU are a pile of chicken little crap.

          • Brucehenry

            Silly. “Public interest” doesn’t mean “public curiosity.” Everyone paying their taxes on time is “in the public interest.” A functional air-traffic control system is “in the public interest.” Similarly, getting to the bottom of a controversy about whether or not a foreign power exercised undue influence on a national election is “in the public interest.”

            I can’t help it if you don’t know the meaning of a common, oft-used phrase.

          • Vagabond661

            Silly. “public interest” doesn’t mean fucking evidence!

            I can’t help it if you don’t know the meaning of a common, oft-used phrase…chicken little.

          • Brucehenry

            Again, the Deputy Attorney General entrusted with this responsibility has decided that it is in the public interest to investigate further, and the retired head of the FBI, universally admired, has accepted the job.

            Meanwhile you and Jim think it’s baloney. OK.

          • Vagabond661

            Show me where I said it was baloney, chicken little.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh did I misunderstand you when you characterized it as chicken little crap? We’ve been talking about this investigation into this controversy you call “chicken little crap.”

            Forgive me if I used “baloney” as a synonym for “chicken little crap.”

          • Vagabond661

            Why don’t you just read what i say, and stop trying to spin what i say. …chicken little.

            And again, i said the stuff you say is chicken little crap and provided examples. I can’t make you understand because you are either too dumb or you choose not to in order to post your chicken little crap. either way, i am done.

          • Brucehenry

            Okay then good night!

          • I lost my patience with this inveterate liar, troll, and purveyor of progressive propaganda long ago.

          • You warrant nothing but snark, contempt, and dismissal out of hand.

          • Scalia

            Actually, I’m one of those who believe that Obama was “coming for our guns,” and I stated so in my column Guns Down Under. I stand by my statements therein.

          • Brucehenry

            Clue poor old Rodney in. He seems to be insisting that nobody here ever said any such thing, and that me remembering otherwise makes me an “inveterate liar.”

          • FO&D

          • Vagabond661

            Understood. In this post, he made the allegation, which I, tongue in cheek, was saying Obama loved guns. I don’t believe there is any doubt given all the statements obama made about guns that he would have if he could have.

          • Brucehenry

            Good job comprehending what the phrase “tongue in cheek” means. Now ask Scalia to explain the phrase “in the public interest.”

          • Vagabond661

            Maybe he can explain “evidence” to you.

          • Perhaps even explain that he who asserts has a duty to support or retract when challenged.

          • jim_m

            If obama could have taken our guns he would have. No honest person will dispute that. Knowing that he could not he attempted several strategies to backdoor the issue.

            With fast & furious he attempted to create a situation of runaway violence on the Mexican border with illegal guns with the apparent intent to demagogue the issue to advance gun control.

            With Operation Choke Point obama attempted to put gun stores (and other perfectly legal businesses) out of business by making it impossible for such businesses to conduct financial transactions. This was patently illegal and is one of many illegal activities for which he could have justly been impeached.

          • Scalia

            Agreed. I have zero doubt that’s what Obama’s objective was.

          • Career Public Servant = Embedded Democrat Operative

            E.g. Lois Lerner.

          • jim_m

            So your claim is that irrational conspiracy mongering is now “moderate”. And yet you deny that it is the center of the democratic platform. Nice contortions you are doing there.

          • Brucehenry

            Asked and answered

          • jim_m

            Yes. You have answered that you believe that these allegations are 100% true, we should spend tens of millions of dollars pursuing them even though there is zero evidence because your ideology tells you that there must be evidence and that denial of these allegations is in fact evidence of their truth. You admit that significant figures of the left are also now supporting these conspiracy theories and that it is now considered moderate by the left to believe in conspiracy theories for which there is no evidence and only rumors from unnamed sources who refuse to produce any verifiable documents or data.

            You are a loon and should probably have your rights to control your own concerns curtailed as you are obviously mentally incompetent.

          • Brucehenry

            This is typical Jim strawman nonsense for which you are never reprimanded or called dishonest, except by me, which is why you always whine I should be banned. Here is what I have said, repeatedly:

            Flynn apparently DID do something illegal and the special counsel will look into that, and also whether anyone else in the Trump campaign or administration did anything similar, or did anything to conceal any wrongdoing. It is my hope that it is found that Trump himself did so, but that is TBD.

            It is considered moderate to wait for the report of the special counsel before either believing these allegations as Gospel or, on the other hand, to dismiss them out of hand.

          • jim_m

            We have not been talking about Flynn. You have repeatedly stated that collusion has occurred and that we will find proof.

          • Brucehenry

            I have named Flynn at least 5 times i this thread. I said nothing about collusion other than Flynn acted as an unregistered foreign agent and that the SC will look into whether others did as well.

          • I, for one, think Wizbang in particular and the world in general would both be better places for his absence.

          • Vagabond661

            He doesn’t offer a lot. Just snark and LOL.

          • jim_m

            Soon he will be saying how Trump, Pence and Ryan will be arrested and that we will have President Orrin Hatch

          • Don’t forget the progressive propaganda…

          • Scalia

            Good piece. The elites will do anything to keep their power. All this blather about the rumors not necessarily being about Trump is a baldfaced lie. Their only purpose is to bring down Trump or to so cripple him that he is rendered ineffective.

            The revolution that produced Trump illustrates our very deep cultural divide, and I fear what it will ultimately produce. The riots in Berkeley are nothing compared to what can happen if cooler heads do not prevail. If the Left thinks they’ll bludgeon the Right into submission, well….they’d better think again:
            https://youtu.be/dD1gwliqvG0

          • Brucehenry

            Wow. Nice to know you support vigilantism, assault, and taking the law into one’s own hands.

          • jim_m

            Nice piece of projection you have there. What precisely do you think the antifa thugs are who support and drive your agenda if not a bunch of vigilantes, assaulting people they disagree with and presuming to take the law into their own hands while in reality they do nothing but violate it and the civil rights of others?

          • Brucehenry

            Did you watch the video that Scalia nods so approvingly at? The one in which Trumpistas attempt to thwart the blocking of traffic, an (admittedly illegal but time-tested) method of protest? That’s vigilantism.

            The first punch, or rather shove, shown in the video comes from a Trumpie. Assault.

            If the “antifa” protesters are indeed breaking the law by blocking traffic, whose job is it to restore order and traffic flow? The Trumpistas or the police? Taking the law into one’s own hands.

            Scalia approves of “might makes right” as revealed by his “well…they’d better think again” smirk.

          • jim_m

            So you are claiming that everything that happened is covered in the video so you know with absolute certainty that the first punch was thrown by a Trump supporter?

            It is not illegal for private citizens to enforce the law until the police arrive to do so. You know that. What you really object to is that your fascist thugs are being prevented from doing the job you employ them to o.

          • Brucehenry

            And are you claiming, in the absence of ANY evidence, that the first blow DID NOT come from a Trumpie? I’m commenting on what the video shows.

          • jim_m

            I’m claiming that the video does not show the entire incident as you well know.

          • Brucehenry

            Of course it doesn’t, but what it does show is a Trumpie striking the first blow as far as we know.

            The Rodney King video didn’t show why he was stopped or why force was employed in the first place but it DID show cops brutally beating a man far beyond what was necessary.

          • Scalia

            Nice to know you support vigilantism, assault, and taking the law into one’s own hands.

            What part of “…I fear what it will ultimately produce. The riots in Berkeley are nothing compared to what can happen if cooler heads do not prevail” do you not understand?

            I’m merely stating a truism that this has boiled over into violence, and that the Right will be just as violent as the Left. I am calling for cooler heads to prevail, and you ignore that to accuse me of supporting vigilantism.

            If the Left thinks it’s going to scream, assault, and bludgeon the Right into submission (e.g. Berkeley), it’s not going to happen. It doesn’t mean that I endorse war; it simply means that war will follow.

          • Brucehenry

            My apologies, I seem to have misinterpreted what you were trying to say.

            I guess I was misled by the “well…they’d better think again” remark. I suppose I chose, in a Jim-like fashion, to focus on something I could attack you on rather than what you actually meant.

            Again, my apologies.

          • Non apologetic apology with embedded slander, for those keeping score from home.

          • Brucehenry

            But sincere, both in the apology and the “slander.”

          • Your slanders here appear to be the only thing you are sincere about, as you conflate sincerity with truth.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes it is true that I regret mischaracterizing Scalia’s post. This makes the third time I have said so.

            Not only do you not know what the French phrases you parrot say, you don’t understand English all that well either.

          • Truth and brucehemorrhoid are non-intersecting sets.

          • Your saying so (Krugman could be as wrong about everything the last 10 years as you say and still be right in this article. And is.) suggests that the odds approach unity that the diminutive dismal scientist is once again not just wrong, but profoundly wrong.

          • jim_m

            Bruce’s foundational assumption that someone must inevitably be correct on something is a logical fallacy.

          • Brucehenry

            I would never assume that. I doubt you’ll ever be right, for example, on any matter of importance.

          • jim_m

            You have twice on this thread acknowledged that I have been correct. You have now succeeded in showing that you are an idiot.

          • Brucehenry

            On unimportant matters like whether or not a blog comment was phrased as it should have been.

          • He has now demonstrated yet again that he is an idiot.

            FIFY

  • stan25

    Gun control worked really well on the perp. The person controlling the firearm saved a lot taxpayer dollars from being wasted on prosecution.

  • Paul Hooson

    In Portland, some guy was recently arrested for robbing a store with a chainsaw. I don’t care what anyone says, I’m bringing an electric hedge-trimmer to work for protection…

  • jim_m

    Now we know where Bruce gets all his bullshit about Trump,

    President Donald Trump is about to resign as a result of the Russia scandal. Bernie Sanders and Sean Hannity are Russian agents. The Russians have paid off House Oversight Chair Jason Chaffetz to the tune of $10 million, using Trump as a go-between. Paul Ryan is a traitor for refusing to investigate Trump’s Russia ties. Libertarian heroine Ayn Rand was a secret Russian agent charged with discrediting the American conservative movement.

    These are all claims you can find made on a new and growing sector of the internet that functions as a fake news bubble for liberals, something I’ve dubbed the Russiasphere. The mirror image of Breitbart and InfoWars on the right, it focuses nearly exclusively on real and imagined connections between Trump and Russia. The tone is breathless: full of unnamed intelligence sources, certainty that Trump will soon be imprisoned, and fever dream factual assertions that no reputable media outlet has managed to confirm.

    As Glenn Reynolds posts: “The common element in nearly all the major New York Times and Washington Post stories about President Donald Trump this week is that they are
    based on source documents the outlets cannot authenticate, do not possess, admit are partial, and refuse to share.”

    But then there is this:

    the overarching issue for the Democratic Party’s base since Trump’s victory has been Russia, often suffocating attention for other issues. This fixation has persisted even though it has no chance to sink the Trump presidency unless it is proven that high levels of the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Kremlin to manipulate the outcome of the U.S. election — a claim for which absolutely no evidence has thus far been presented.

    The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies — just as right-wing media polemicists did after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected — that there are now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there is no evidence. And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed.

    But with serious doubts — and fears — now emerging about what the Democratic base has been led to believe by self-interested carnival barkers and partisan hacks, there is a sudden, concerted effort to rein in the excesses of this story. With so many people now doing this, it will be increasingly difficult to smear them all as traitors and Russian loyalists, but it may be far too little, too late, given the pitched hysteria that has been deliberately cultivated around these issues for months. Many Democrats have reached the classic stage of deranged conspiracists where evidence that disproves the theory is viewed as further proof of its existence, and those pointing to it are instantly deemed suspect.

    Bruce has fallen for this fact free conspiracy mongering. He is spreading lies like a 1930’s fascist hoping that if the lies are big enough they will be believed.

    • Brucehenry

      Funny since you didn’t apparently read the whole Vox article. Also funny that the “Russiasphere” is described as the “mirror image” of Breitbart, from whence Trump drew at least one one of his top advisers, and Infowars, Alex Jones’ circus on which Trump has appeared many times, and on which he has described Jones in glowing terms.

      Greenwald’s article makes generally the same points — that Dems must guard against letting a faction of their party become like the Repiblicans — a bunch of howling, tinfoil hat wearing monkeys in the mirror image of the birthers and Benghazi truthers.

      • jim_m

        The point, which you missed, is that while only a fraction of the right ever fell into the conspiracy mongering swamp, the entirety of the left (including you, you dumbass) has done exactly that.

        The GOP never worried that they were going to be marginalized by the tin foil hat brigade. The Dems are seriously concerned and should be.

        You think that this is a warning against a faction forming. It is not. It is a warning that the whole body of the left has perhaps already succumbed to these sick fantasies an it may be too late to save it.

        You have alrady fallen into this pit of lunacy and you have spent the entire thread justifying your conspiracy theories. Even when presented with the fact that your theories are built on “source documents the outlets cannot authenticate, do not possess, admit are partial, and refuse to share”, you double down on how it somehow must be true and that the denials are in fact proof of their truth.

        • Brucehenry

          Hint: because Glenn Fucking Greenwald, an ally of Assange, a friend of Snowden, and a defender of going easy on Russia, says that a thing is true, that doesn’t mean it is indeed true.

          You say the GOP never worried that it was going to be marginalized by the tinfoil hat brigade? They should have. Even today, polls show a majority of Republicans believe Obama is a Muslim and a large plurality believe his birth certificate is fake.

          • jim_m

            Yes, I suppose Vox is an example of right wing fear mongering that you are always going on about. I see that you are ignoring THAT article, which I linked at the same time.

            The most worrying sign, according to the scholars I spoke to, is that some mainstream figures and publications are starting to validate Russiasphere claims.

            For instance, after the New York Times published the Mensch piece back in March, former DNC chair Donna Brazile tweeted out the story, with a follow-up thanking Mensch for “good journalism”…

            A current DNC communications staffer — Adrienne Watson — favorably retweeted a Mensch claim that the Russians had “kompromat,” or blackmail, on Rep. Chaffetz…

            Two former Obama staffers, Ned Price and Eric Schultz, favorably discussed a Palmer Report story aggregating Mensch’s allegations about Chaffetz (“interesting, if single-source,” Price tweeted). Larry Tribe, an eminent and famous constitutional law professor at Harvard, shared the same Palmer Report story on Twitter — and even defended his decision to do so in an email to BuzzFeed’s Joseph Bernstein.

            Unlike the GOP the tin foil hat brigade is headed by Clinton, obama and the DNC. It IS the dem mainstream.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes it is worrisome that someone of the stature of Brazile re-tweeted Mensch and that the NYT published it. But the Vox article goes on to say it’s a good thing the Dems don’t have a ready-made echo chamber like the FOX/Talk Radio axis so the chances are less we’ll spawn a rabid crowd of kooks like the birthers and the benghazi truthers,

          • jim_m

            And you stopped reading there because it is immediately after that where the article points out that it is the mainstream that is adopting this wholeheartedly. DNC staff. Obama staff. The core of the left is adopting these insane beliefs.

            YOU have adopted them. You sit here and talk about a right wing echo chamber but you omit the part where you are saying that there IS something to these Russia allegations. You omit the part where you are disseminating the same conspiracy nonsense that these other people are.

          • Brucehenry

            Two Obama staffers. Had you ever heard their names before the Vox article?

            The article says exactly the opposite of what you are saying it says — it says that most mainstream Dems have NOT gone off the deep end — with the caveat “not yet.” It warns the Dems not to go down the road the GOP went down years ago. Talk about missing the point!

            Yes, there IS something to these allegations — Flynn. Whether or not there is anything else to them will be up to the special counsel to ferret out. I haven’t said anything beyond that, except my fervent hope that Trump DOES turn out to be guilty of something. Whether he actually IS or not is TBD.

            Again, career civil servants Rosenstein and Mueller seem to think these things are worth looking into. Your opinion that they are not notwithstanding.

          • jim_m

            There are lots of obama staffers I have never heard of. That doesn’t make their falling into it irrelevant.

          • Brucehenry

            No it doesn’t but doesn’t change the fact that you have fundamentally misread the Vox article because you are a dumbass.

          • jim_m

            No I have not. It lists people like Donna Brazile and others. Leading leftists like Lawrence Tribe are jumping on board with this. You, yourself have just called it a “moderate” viewpoint.

            My point is that it is mainstream and you have just validated that claim.

          • Brucehenry

            The article warns that some mainstream Dems “have begun” to cite these loony sources like Mensch and the Palmer Report and warns against others doing so. Since Vox is kind of influential in liberal circles it is my hope that this warning will be heeded in the future.

            EDIT: You never could fucking read.

          • jim_m

            LOL. Good luck with that.

          • Brucehenry

            Thanks! And good luck in your remedial reading class!

          • jim_m

            F off

    • Vox.

      Really?

      Wow. Reality is sinking in there – miracles DO happen, apparently! 😉

  • yetanotherjohn

    Texas has limitations on concealed carry including that you can’t carry if a) you are intoxicated or b) the place you are carrying derives 51% or more of it’s revenue from selling alcohol. So when I first started reading this I thought things might turn out bad for the shooter. If you are hanging around a bar the chances you are intoxicated go up and if it is a “bar” bar, then you can’t be carrying anyway. Hopefully the shooter didn’t have to much to drink and the “grill” is bigger than the “bar”. This being Texas, I suspect the officers might have been a little slow to give him a breathalyser test. The gunman doesn’t appear to be too coherent, but the more stories like this, the less likely someone will think whipping out a gun to commit a crime is a good idea.
    Many moons ago, well before concealed carry and when republicans were rarely elected, there was a story of a burglary breaking into the home of a widow who was in her 70’s. Said widow had an honest to God Colt .45 six shooter which she then decided to employ. Her eyesight wasn’t the best so she missed with her first shot. The burglar having more intelligence than a box of rocks decided to leave the premises. The widow followed him outside and proceeded to empty all the chambers as the burglar ran down the sidewalk. Every shot missed the burglar and all bystanders.
    Texas being Texas, she never went to trial. The district attorney is an elected position and he knew that if he brought the widow to trial, he would likely not be re-elected. So the DA decided not to prosecute. Today we have concealed carry and democrats are rarely elected. We haven’t elected a democrat to state wide office for more than two decades. Still, somethings never change and I suspect that in the same circumstances the widow would not have been brought to trial today.

    • Scalia

      The establishment in question is a “blue sign” bar, which means that licensed handgun owners may legally carry there.