Friday's HOT MIC
There, I said it:
I've been saying for months that the chosen candidate of the Democrat-Media Complex for 2020 will be California's malevolent nothingburger, Kamala Harris. And here she is:
For a couple of hours on a recent Thursday, Sen. Kamala Harris of California became the favorite to win the Democratic Party's 2020 presidential nomination. According to the oddsmakers, that is.
PredictIt, a website that allows election junkies to place real money behind their political prognostications, has been asking thousands of its traders who they think will be the party's next White House standard-bearer. Harris, just entering her 12th month as a senator, has remained among the top three candidates since the market opened Aug. 30.
The trio of other front-runners – Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and former Vice President Joe Biden – are no surprise given their well-established national followings. It's the 53-year-old Harris who has rocketed up the chain of fresh possibilities this year, as she's been feted by elite donors, fawned over by the Democratic establishment and elevated by a smitten national press corps.
As the cultural and ideological antidote to the current president, her ascension was almost inevitable. But it's also been in motion for years.
Forget the dinosaurs like Sanders, Warren, Biden and, God knows, Hillary Clinton. The Democrats want to go back to the Obama well one more time, and present the female version of Barry.
As someone christened the next Barack Obama before Obama was even a presidential candidate, grand notions about the future have always been an ingredient in Kamala Devi Harris' profile. "With an Indian mother and a Jamaican father, Harris strikes some observers as a California version of Barack Obama," the Los Angeles Times wrote in October 2004, during Harris' first year of elected office and a month before Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate.
Four years later, at the moment when Clinton's candidacy was in its last throes against presidential candidate Obama, The New York Times' Kate Zernike looked ahead and noted Harris as among the field of potential first female presidents.
They play the long game, these Media-Democrats do. After all, Obama's first steps to the White House were planted by the New York Times (of course) back in 1990.
The Harvard Law Review, generally considered the most prestigious in the country, elected the first black president in its 104-year history today. The job is considered the highest student position at Harvard Law School. The new president of the Review is Barack Obama, a 28-year-old graduate of Columbia University who spent four years heading a community development program for poor blacks on Chicago's South Side before enrolling in law school. His late father, Barack Obama, was a finance minister in Kenya and his mother, Ann Dunham, is an American anthropologist now doing fieldwork in Indonesia. Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.
''The fact that I've been elected shows a lot of progress,'' Mr. Obama said today in an interview. ''It's encouraging."
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
What the well-dressed blackshirt thugs are wearing to the revolution, courtesy of the New York Times:
This mass of solid black descending upon the park in Berkeley, hunting for fascists, was an intimidating aesthetic. That’s by design.
“Cops wear camouflage when they arrest people in city drug raids,” said Ben, a Bay Area activist. “But they’re in a city. It doesn’t help them, but it makes them look more intimidating.” Ben says he has participated in protests since 2000, including Bush/Gore, Occupy Oakland and Black Lives Matter. (The Times agreed to use only his first name because of the threat of harassment, online or otherwise, by activists.) “A group of people all dressed in black can be intimidating,” he said.
Is that intimidation the motive or just a benefit? Do black bloc practitioners dress up because, as many progressives wonder, they want to commit crimes? What do they get out of “masking up”? Where does uniform merge with tactic?
This from the same newspaper that's been observing, far more in sorrow than in anger, the centenary of Communism. But wait -- there's more!
By now, you know the look. Black work or military boots, pants, balaclavas or ski masks, gloves and jackets, North Face brand or otherwise. Gas masks, goggles and shields may be added as accessories, but the basics have stayed the same since the look’s inception.
It’s impossible to say which anarchist street movement first donned all black. The generally agreed-upon genesis for the bloc’s current incarnation is the Autonomen movement of the 1970s, which grew out of class struggles in Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and beyond. (Antifa groups, an overlapping but not at all identical set of people, trace their lineage back further, to those who fought against the rise of Hitler; generally, where there is “fa,” there’s been “antifa.”)
Great point (as usual) from Nick Short:
So how odd is this?
On January 23, 2017, the Washington Post reported that Michael Flynn had been cleared of any wrongdoing regarding his phone calls with the Russian ambassador:
In court documents released today, prosecutors claim, "Flynn falsely denied to investigators that he had asked Kislyak in a meeting during the presidential transition to refrain from escalating the situation after the United States imposed new sanctions on Russia..."
The date for this in-person meeting with the FBI according to court documents is "on or about January 24, 2017"?
Wictor thinks that person could be Flynn himself, but who knows.
The only remaining crimes that have been committed (other than the process crime of lying to the FBI) are the illegal leaking of Flynn's phone calls with the Russian ambassador to the media -- which the DOJ doesn't seem to be investigating -- and the possibly illegal unmasking of Americans incidentally caught in surveillance of foreign nationals by members of the Obama administration.