Monday's HOT MIC
Senator Rand Paul entered the U.S. Senate chamber Monday evening following an attack in his yard on Nov. 3 that left him with six broken ribs.
Paul said he is returning to Washington to "fight for liberty" and work on tax cuts.
Yet let us not forget the sex crimes of which the younger, stronger Bill Clinton was very credibly accused in the 1990s. Juanita Broaddrick reported that when she was a volunteer on one of his gubernatorial campaigns, she had arranged to meet him in a hotel coffee shop. At the last minute, he had changed the location to her room in the hotel, where she says he very violently raped her. She said she fought against Clinton throughout a rape that left her bloodied. At a different Arkansas hotel, he caught sight of a minor state employee named Paula Jones, and, Jones says, he sent a couple of state troopers to invite her to his suite, where he exposed his penis to her and told her to kiss it. Kathleen Willey said that she met him in the Oval Office for personal and professional advice and that he groped her, rubbed his erect penis on her, and pushed her hand to his crotch.
It was a pattern of behavior; it included an alleged violent assault; the women involved had far more credible evidence than many of the most notorious accusations that have come to light in the past five weeks. But Clinton was not left to the swift and pitiless justice that today’s accused men have experienced. Rather, he was rescued by a surprising force: machine feminism. The movement had by then ossified into a partisan operation and it was willing—eager—to let this friend of the sisterhood enjoy a little droit de seigneur.
The notorious 1998 New York Times op-ed by Gloria Steinem must surely stand as one of the most regretted public actions of her life. It slut-shamed, victim-blamed, and age-shamed; it urged compassion for and gratitude to the man the women accused. Moreover (never write an op-ed in a hurry; you’ll accidentally say what you really believe), it characterized contemporary feminism as a weaponized auxiliary of the Democratic Party.
Read the whole thing, and enjoy the bonfire of the vanities.
The NFL Players Association is practicing a little damage control as they released an ad recently that ran during the games yesterday that features several NFL players telling us we have them all wrong; they just simply LOVE the military.
I wrote on the ad this morning at AT:
I have no doubt that many NFL players have tremendous respect for the military and their service. Even some of the protesters - misguided though they might be - may respect the flag and the armed forces. Many NFL players say they have family members who have served and would never do anything to disrespect them or their service.
All of this is true. But it is also true that it really doesn't matter that they believe their protests don't disrespect the flag and the military. Fifty million people or more think that's exactly what they're doing. And the way that many of the NFL players have responded to criticism of their actions proves they have a childlike view of the First Amendment and what free speech really means.
I would guess that if there are players in the locker room who disagree with the anthem protests, they have been pressured to keep their mouths shut -- probably by both the owners and players. It's about time they spoke up and tried to end this damaging, idiotic protest. Someone has to make the protesting players realize that many, if not a majority of Americans are angry at them and that eventually, the owners are going to grow a pair and stop the silliness for them.
The Sessions DOJ has been under increasing pressure from the right to start looking into some of the major scandals of the Obama era, including Uranium One, improper unmasking of Americans, the Clinton Foundation and more.
According to Circa News, multiple congressional referrals for investigations over the past year regarding these scandals have indeed led to ongoing investigations.
DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores told Circa that "all allegations are reviewed in light of the principles of federal prosecution. And while some may find it frustrating at times, the Department has a policy against confirming or denying the existence of investigations in order to maintain the integrity of the process until and if charges are filed."
Sessions is expected to be asked questions about the status of such investigations when he appears before the House Judiciary Committee tomorrow.
When conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt asked him about the Uranium One case, last month, Sessions wouldn't say whether or not there was an investigation, or if he had recused himself from it..
"Of course there was one case that’s already been prosecuted, and people have been sentenced on," he said. "But as to what may happen after that, if anything, I’m not able to comment."
A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially granted a Trump administration request to block at least temporarily a judge’s ruling that had put the new ban on hold. Trump’s ban was announced on Sept. 24 and replaced two previous versions that had been impeded by federal courts.
The action means the ban will apply to people from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Chad who do not have connections to the United States.
Those connections are defined as family relationships and “formal, documented” relationships with U.S.-based entities such as universities and resettlement agencies. Those with family relationships that would allow entry include grandparents, grandchildren, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and cousins of people in the United States.
That's still way too many "family" members, because once any of them is in, the chain migration can start in earnest. But at least it's a start.