Wednesday's HOT MIC

Welcome to HOT MIC, PJ Media's daily liveblog. Join our editors and contributors for news updates and conversation throughout the day, and add your thoughts to the mix in our comments section at the bottom or by clicking on the comment bubbles on individual posts.  Be sure to save this link so you can find HOT MIC every day.

Happened this morning and so far lawmakers are being hush-hush about how it went:

Former national security adviser Susan Rice was interviewed by the House Intelligence Committee behind closed doors for just over four hours on Wednesday morning as part of that panel’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Lawmakers emerged tight-lipped from Wednesday’s interview. Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), who is now leading the investigation, said that Rice answered lawmakers’ questions but would provide no other details. The panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif.), similarly declined to comment on the meeting.

Obama's former hatchet woman was likely asked about her role in the "Watergate-style" unmasking scandal. 

I'm curious what the plan is. Tie them to a tree and hope they don't drown?

Tie them to a tree and hope they do?

Donald Trump has reportedly made a deal with Congressional leadership that would fund Harvey relief, raise the debt limit, and fund the government through December 15.

Apparently, Trump decided not to go the route that conservatives were hoping for, which included separating Harvey relief funding from the debt limit bill.

The Hill:

The deal, reached Wednesday at a White House meeting between congressional leaders from both parties and Trump, would attach both measures to a House bill aiding communities hit by Hurricane Harvey.

"We essentially came to a deal, and I think the deal will be very good," Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Wednesday.

He added that "so we have an extension, which will go out to December 15th. That will include the debt ceiling, that will include the CRs, and it will include Harvey."

Democrats were the first to announce the deal, which appeared to come despite some objections from Republicans.

“In the meeting, the president and congressional leadership agreed to pass aid for Harvey, an extension of the debt limit, and a continuing resolution both to December 15, all together,” Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a joint statement.

The announcement comes after Pelosi, Schumer, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) met with Trump at the White House to discuss the fall agenda.

"I will be adding that as an amendment to the [House] flood relief bill," McConnell told reporters Wednesday afternoon.

McConnell confirmed he will support the agreement.

Other Republicans, possibly surprised to see the Republican president cut a deal with Democrats, soon raised their concerns.

"The Pelosi-Schumer-Trump deal is bad," said Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.).

No politician in their right mind is going to vote against Harvey relief, so padding the funding bill with the debt limit increase and continuing resolution was the easiest way forward -- if not the best way.

Another factor that should be considered is that the FEMA is nearly out of cash and the Harvey funding is needed if the feds are going to have the money to deal with Irma, which promises to be even worse than Harvey.

I sense the presence of General Kelly in this decision. It's practical politics devoid of bombast and ideological baggage. Would Trump have been capable of making this deal before Kelly arrived?

For your Hump Day pleasure, here is a refrigerator that will come to you rather than making you go to it.

As a follow-up to what I just posted, the presumption of innocence is practically nonexistent at America's top universities.

From DCNF:

University students are not “innocent until proven guilty” at approximately 75 percent of America’s top schools, announced a civil liberties non-profit organization Tuesday.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) released this figure and others in its Spotlight on Due Process 2017, a study scoring U.S. News & World Report’s 53 top universities on 10 criteria of due process.

FIRE found that 39 out of 53 of the top institutions do not presume that accused students are innocent. Furthermore, only 47.2 percent of the schools mandate the impartiality of judges or juries.

The nonprofit found that the majority of the top schools implemented different standards for adjudicating charges, based on whether they were sexual assault or another offense. Nearly 80 percent of the schools scored a “D” or an “F” for upholding the due process rights of accused students in sexual misconduct cases.

Last night I highlighted the efforts of YAF in the fight for free speech on college campuses. FIRE is another indispensable organization both for that fight and the fight for due process. You can learn more about them here.

The mothers of sons who have been falsely accused of sexual assault on college campuses are organizing and going full Mama Bear.

From Time:

This one, FACE — Families Advocating for Campus Equality — largely comprises moms whose sons have been accused of sexual assault in college.

In our Trumpian age of political hand-to-hand combat (metaphorical and literal), moms don’t take their accused sons back home and lick their wounds. They organize. They fight publicly. “This is a witch hunt, no different than the Salem witch trials or McCarthyism,”a FACE organizer says in a raspy voice when she calls me from a state far away. “A fear has been sold to the country, that every man is a potential rapist. This is now an American truth, just the way the Communists infiltrating and taking over our country was a truth of McCarthyism. For our American boys today, it’s guilty before innocent.”

Obviously, the McCarthy comparison isn't a very good one-there were commies everywhere back then, as we now know.

But they're right about the witch hunt.

The author of the article just released a book about campus sexual assault. Much of her writing about them is the typical liberal surprise that happens when they encounter people who are more conservative than they are and find that they don't all have three heads.

She survived her encounter with the icky others, and it was a bad day for her confirmation bias.

I thought that these moms would want to talk about what they’d done wrong as parents to have raised sons who might be villains, or at least knaves.

Knaves? Did she write her book in 1895?

The author gives her liberal sensibilities a nice palate cleanser by quoting a radical feminist who has nothing nice to say about the mothers.

Reading Roger's thoughts on the Golden State and a couple of things stand out.

First, you're right Roger-opinion writers don't research. It's all I can do to pull up my profile and find an old post of my own to reference.

On California, I too debate leaving now. Not every day, but more than I used to. Admittedly, I almost never considered it until the last couple of years.

When I was still hip-deep in political activism my attitude was that I should stay here to fight the hostile commie takeover. I figured if I was fighting, I may as well be somewhere they needed me to fight. My activist services weren't needed in places where people already voted the way I would vote.

Now that I am not really an activist anymore (by choice), that will to keep beating my head against the super-majority brick wall in Sacramento isn't as strong.

I don't find it as intolerable as you do, but I do find myself more impatient with the urban lifestyle these days. Heaven help me, I still love Los Angeles, for the most part.

I do think it is important for there to be center-right political voices who are on the west coast. The conservative Beltway opinion types are barely distinguishable on some days.

Bear in mind that I am writing this from the perspective of a guy who has a sports bar 100 yards from his front door and pretty much stays in his own neighborhood. It's not as if I'm out in traffic or talking to people or anything.

Here's a fun picture of the WH meetings this afternoon:

Here's a spooky rumor I heard last night about North Korea  that in a bizarre way rings true:  Kim's nutsy threatening behavior is calculated deliberately to temporarily tank the U.S. (and global) stock market.  In other words, the NORKs are going short on nuclear talk. And it's working.  They are making a killing.

Yesterday was a case in point when, inevitably after all the thermonuclear panic over Labor Day weekend, the market dipped about one percent.  It's crawling back today.  This is not the first time this pattern occurred.  Anyway, poisoned food for thought.

(One added thought.  Every time you think the NORKs are way behind the times, remember: they hacked Sony Pictures in the most sophisticated manner.)

Just wondering:

Did the Houston flood wash it away? Hurrican Irma? It was in all the papers just a few weeks ago...

Maybe we should poll the old JournOList listserv group and find out what happened.